Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Disability Living Allowance

Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration has been given to extending the mobility component of the disability living allowance to children aged under five years suffering from defined illnesses. [28803]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): Entitlement to disability living allowance is not defined by a specific illness or disability, but is based on the effects of a disability on an individual's care and mobility needs. There is no age limit for the care component because we accept that the care needs of disabled children may be significantly greater than those of able-bodied children. However, there is generally not such a great difference in the help needed for mobility between children under five with disabilities and those without.

Mr. Mudie: Is the Minister aware that the seemingly sensible starting point for the mobility component of five years of age is of great inconvenience to parents with children below that age who have certain restrictive illnesses? Will he give some thought to that starting point, and consider parents without private transport who experience the sheer trauma of taking ill children and, often, burdensome medical equipment, on public transport?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman raises a particularly difficult child policy matter. I am aware that he has written to me about the case of his young constituent, Jacob. I want to make two points in response. First, the mobility component is intended specifically to help people become independently mobile, and the starting point of five years of age—the age when a child starts school— strikes a reasonable balance. Secondly, in respect of the case that he has raised, the family are receiving disability living allowance care component at the higher level, and invalid care allowance. I hope that he accepts that benefit money is going to that family.

Mr. Thomason: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it would cost tens of millions of pounds to pay the mobility component to children under the age of five? Will he further confirm that it is the policy of his Department to restrict expenditure wherever possible and to curb social security spending? Does he find it surprising that, again and again, Labour proposes extra expenditure in this field?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The cost of extending the mobility component to children under five years of age would be about £30 million. The Government have a proud record of spending on the long-term sick, which has increased by a factor of three since 1979, to £22 billion. We are now helping more than six times as many people as were helped by the previous Labour Government.

Family Poverty

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to meet Church leaders to discuss the impact and extent of family poverty in the United Kingdom. [28804]

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): Ministers regularly meet representatives from a wide variety of organisations, including Church leaders.

Mr. Mackinlay: Is the Minister aware that the Christian Churches are concerned about the growing disparity between the haves and the have-nots in society, increasing family poverty and growing deprivation? If he agrees with that analysis, what is he doing about it? If he disagrees, will he explain why to the people who complement their spiritual work with pastoral care in the community, and who daily witness the consequences of the selfish society that has been created during the past 17 years?

Mr. Burt: Until his final throw-away remark, I thought the hon. Gentleman's question was important. The point about poverty and how we deal with it concerns us all. The hon. Gentleman asked what we are doing about it. We have introduced a variety of measures to encourage people into work, as we know that work is the best answer to low income and poverty. I agree, however, that poverty is not just about material things—it includes spiritual matters as well. In my work with the single regeneration budget and city challenge, I see what the Government have done to bring about the right spirit in many poor communities. Indeed, Easterhouse, where Prince Charles and Jacques Chirac were last week, is an object lesson in what can be achieved. If the hon. Gentleman agrees that work is one of the answers, I am sure that he will welcome the drop in unemployment in his constituency in the past few years and, if he does, I cannot see how a minimum wage would help him to help people keep their jobs.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that many people welcome the assistance that the Government gave 10 years ago to the "Faith in the City" report? Many were present when our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke at Southwark cathedral on such issues, years before he took over the Department. I am glad that the


Government have followed many of the recommendations of that report in so far as they are directed to the nation, because trying to change people's lives in inner-city areas and to give them freedom from poverty is one of the main responsibilities of people in politics.

Mr. Burt: I entirely agree. Several initiatives were created in response to "Faith in the City" and the Church urban fund has a number of projects. I was interested to learn that a new chief executive has been appointed to the fund, who also believes that it is important that the advance into material well-being is accompanied by a change in people's spiritual attitudes. That is what the work of the Church is about. We have followed that line in a number of projects throughout the country. By restoring power to people as tenants and through education, the Government's policies have helped to stimulate the very changes that people need.

Reduced Earnings Allowance

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the reduction in reduced earnings allowance. [28805]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): A number.

Mrs. Clwyd: What would the Minister say to those disabled constituents of mine—many of them ex-miners—who were suddenly faced with a drop in income of £30 a week? How are they expected to cope with that sort of drop? It is yet another vindictive attack by the Government on the poor and the disabled.

Mr. Evans: I am afraid that the hon. Lady has misunderstood. The reduced earnings allowance is intended to compensate for reduced earnings. If a person is over pensionable age and not earning, it is unreasonable for them to go on receiving that allowance. Parliament decided as long ago as 1988 that, when people stopped earning after retirement age, the proper benefit was retirement allowance, which is tax free and non-contributory. Under the regulations and developing case law, some people managed to retain the reduced earnings allowance although they were over retirement age and had stopped earning, while many others did not. That was unfair and unreasonable and the Government have amended by regulation to correct that position.

Mrs. Peacock: I am sure that we all appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. We also appreciate that any change in anyone's income and life style is always a trauma. Can he confirm that the allowance was always meant to be for reduced earnings and was, therefore, available while people were of working age? When the rules were changed in 1988, some people managed to continue drawing that money after pension age and others did not, which in itself has set up differences between households.

Mr. Evans: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister answer the central thrust of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)? We have been

told by such organisations as the Disablement Income Group that 20,000 old disabled people are losing an average of £30 a week without any notice. Does he accept that that is completely unacceptable? How will he answer the ex-miners in my hon. Friend's constituency, mine and elsewhere, who are suffering from pneumoconiosis, and the ex-building workers who are suffering from asbestosis, who are claiming that their incomes have been drastically reduced? Are not the Government showing once again—as they did on the Community Care Direct Payments Bill—that they could not care less for the problems of older disabled people?

Mr. Evans: The change was announced last November. It has been Government policy since 1988. It was accidental and arbitrary that some people managed to take advantage of the rules. It was possible for people who retired the day before their retirement birthday to go on receiving reduced earnings allowance even if they never did another day's work in their lives. The interesting question for the hon. Gentleman is whether, at a cost of £25 million a year, he is pledging to restore the change.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Is it not clear from its attacks on the Government that the Labour party wants to give the impression that it would restore the social security spending changes while telling the country that it, too, would cut social security spending? Is that not yet another case of saying two opposing things at the same time?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right on all points.

Social Fund Loans

Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants were refused a social fund loan on the grounds of inability to pay, in (a) 1991–92 and (b) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [28807]

Mr. Roger Evans: In 1991–92, out of 2.07 million applications, 37,213 were refused on that ground. In 1994–95, out of 2.5 million applications, 12,303 were refused on that ground. Refusals on grounds of inability to repay decreased again in 1995–96 to 10,411 out of 2.5 million applications.

Mr. Battle: Is not the social fund loan system proving to be a classic Catch-22? Unemployed people cannot afford to pay back the required interest. Moreover, grants are made only to people who have been discharged from long-term stays in hospital or who have been released from prison. There is nothing for families who want to set up home. Are not the Government dumping their social obligations on charity second-hand shops and driving people into the hands of unscrupulous loan sharks?

Mr. Evans: That is wrong on all points and a grotesque exaggeration. For an outlay of £344 million since the fund was set up, £1.6 billion-worth of loans have been made, which have helped five times as many people as a simple grant scheme would have helped for the same cost. In the past year, 41,000 budget loan applications were refused and grants given instead.

Mr. Bradley: Does the Minister recognise that the social fund is failing to help the people in greatest need— 60 per cent. of the budget is swallowed by administrative costs? The excellent children's charities report, "Out of pocket the failure of the social fund", shows that many vulnerable groups, especially children in families, are not receiving adequate help. How does the Minister respond to the many examples in the report of families having to cut back on food and other essential items because they have to repay loans instead of getting grants? Will he consider the workings of the social fund and ensure that it alleviates poverty rather than reinforces it, as it does for many families?

Mr. Evans: I can only conclude, from the logic of the hon. Gentleman's question, that he would scrap loans and replace them with grants at an annual extra cost of £263 million. Is that a spending pledge from the Labour party?

Social Security Expenditure

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the proportion of gross domestic product devoted to social security expenditure (a) in 1994–95 and (b) in 1995–96. [28808]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): In 1994–95, social security expenditure accounted for nearly 13.1 per cent. of GDP. For 1995–96, it fell to just under 13 per cent. We expect reforms already introduced to bring it below 12 per cent. by the end of the century.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State say how much of the reduction in the share of GDP taken by social security spending is being borne by people who are already poor through benefit cuts, and how much is the result of more people getting jobs?

Mr. Lilley: I have not made any allowance for our great and continuing success in reducing unemployment. If that continues, as I assume it will, the situation will be further improved. The reforms that I have introduced have been sensible, well thoughtout and designed to focus benefit on those in need. I do not propose to take away benefit from children who stay on at school to study and get qualifications because that would deter—as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) proposes to—children from doing that and getting good jobs. That would mean that they would be more likely to be on the dole and increase public expenditure.

Mrs. Roe: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that social security spending would increase if the jobseeker's allowance were scrapped, because work incentives would be damaged and dependence increased? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that work-to-welfare policy was revealed as being on the Labour party's hidden agenda in the article by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that appeared during the weekend?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. We are committed to a policy of getting people off benefit and back into work. All Labour's proposals would get them out of work and on to benefit.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) let the cat out of the bag by saying that Labour was committed to abolishing the jobseeker's allowance. He has since told us that they were words he did not write in an article he had not read. None the less, what he said was official Labour policy; he is a Labour spokesman. Another Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), said in the House on behalf of Labour Members:
We reject the JSA and all it stands for … we will get rid … of the ISA".—[Official Report, 17 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 765.]

Hon. Members: Ah.

Mr. Lilley: Were they words he did not say?

Unclaimed Benefit

Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the level of unclaimed benefit in the last year for which figures are available. [28809]

Mr. Burt: The rate of take-up varies from benefit to benefit. It is lowest among income-related benefits, but even for those only about £1 of every £10 available goes unclaimed. Child benefit has a particularly high take-up.

Dr. Wright: Does the Minister agree that, although it is very important to crack down on fraud, it is equally important to ensure that people receive the benefits to which they are entitled? Does he understand that there is much anxiety about the proposed threat to the benefit line service, the freeline service and the out-of-hours service which, if it is carried out, would make it much more difficult for people to know about and claim the benefits to which they are properly entitled?

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is important that the Benefits Agency gets its message about benefits over. No decisions have been taken about the matters that he raises, but the Department and the Benefits Agency spend £26 million a year getting over information. We have good local information services. Our information officers travel to meet people. There was a joint meeting in Coventry last week with Age Concern, to which more than 300 people came, so there is a wide variety of mechanisms for getting information about benefit out, plus as many welfare rights organisations as anyone would care to mention.
I do not believe that it is possible to substantiate a charge that many people do not know about the availability of benefits or where they can go for help, but we count it as very important that people have information available to them, and the Government and the agency will continue to make available information about benefits.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my hon. Friend take to heart what the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) said about people receiving the benefits to which they are entitled? Are not 16 to 18-year-olds entitled to the £1,000 or so help that they receive from child benefit to get them through their A-levels? Would he, like me, be ashamed to be a member of a party that proposed to rob them of that money?

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend has said it all.

Ms Lynne: The Minister must accept that the low take-up of benefit is a problem; that is why child benefit is so effective. Does he agree that scrapping child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds would deter many young people from entering further education? Will he also give a guarantee today that the Government will uprate child benefit at least in line with inflation?

Mr. Burt: The Government's child benefit policy was laid out in the manifesto, and we have stuck to it as the cornerstone of support for families. I appreciate the support that the hon. Lady has given to child benefit and her opposition to the cut proposed by the Labour party. If she supported the Child Support Agency instead of organisations such as NACSA—Network Against the Child Support Act—that would be equally welcome to Conservative Members.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the payment of child benefit to children between the ages of 16 and 18 often determines whether they can stay on in education, and that taking away their child benefit significantly decreases their life chances? Is not that a disgrace?

Mr. Burt: Yes, child benefit has been one of the most significant benefits for families—certainly for those who may find it difficult to put their children through education. This extra help for those between 16 and 18 has counted for a great deal. I find it difficult to understand why the Labour party has proposed the cut.

Mr. Denham: Why is the Minister so complacent about the 600,000 pensioners who do not claim the income support to which they are entitled? Will he confirm his Department's estimate that they go without an average £14 a week? Does he agree that such pensioners must be among the poorest people in Britain? Is that why they are so low on his list of priorities?

Mr. Burt: When the hon. Gentleman's party was last in power, the lowest 10 per cent. of the population by income included almost double the number of pensioners who occupy that decile now. I do not think that he cared much about the pensioners then; he does not seem to care about 16 to 18-year-olds now. Care and concern for young people and pensioners is best left in our hands.

Social Security Expenditure

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the annual average real growth in social security expenditure since 1966; and what was the figure in 1995–96. [28810]

Mr. Lilley: Between 1965–66 and 1995–96, social security expenditure grew in real terms by an average of 4.4 per cent. a year. Growth to 1998–99 is projected to be 1.3 per cent. a year—well within the expected growth of the economy.

Sir Michael Neubert: What does that reduction in average real growth represent in savings to the social security budget? What prospects are there of its continuing into the next century?

Mr. Lilley: The reforms that we have introduced, amounting to the biggest programme of welfare reform since the Beveridge policy was introduced in 1948, will save in the next Parliament some £5 billion a year and in due course more than £15 billion a year. All our reforms have been opposed by the Labour party.

Mr. Alan Howarth: As the Minister reflects on the growth of social security spending, will he also consider how small a part of that growth is accounted for by support for carers, who save the Exchequer an estimated £34 billion a year but who often impoverish themselves in giving that service? Will he review the system of benefits for them, including the threshold of earnings at which the invalid care allowance is withdrawn; and the hours of caring that have to be put in to qualify for invalid care allowance? Will he particularly review the ridiculous and hurtful rule that allows people the allowance if they support one person for 35 hours a week but not if they support two people—perhaps two elderly parents—for the same amount of time?
Will the Minister raise the invalid care allowance and extend the carers premium on income support to people who take up the responsibility after the age of 65?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman knows full well, because he studies these matters, that carers' benefits are the fastest growing area of expenditure in the welfare system. He was outspoken on welfare issues during his time in my party. I wonder whether he is going to say in public what we know he believes in private about the proposals of his new party to take away child benefit from those who stay on at school. Or is he now less willing to parade his conscience in public?

Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his reforms are designed to target those in greatest need and to increase incentives to get people back into work?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A key to getting people back into work is the jobseeker's allowance, which we introduced in the teeth of Labour opposition and which we know Labour is determined to withdraw and abolish. We are amused to hear Labour Members say that this is part of another review—it is time they stopped reviewing and came up with concrete proposals and policies.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Secretary of State accept that a major component of rising social security expenditure in recent years has been the growth in expenditure on housing benefit? Does he accept the conclusion of the Social Security Committee last week, that something like £2 billion a year is being defrauded from the housing benefit system, much of it by private sector landlords? Will the Secretary of State now take far more seriously the issue of landlord fraud on housing benefit? Will he accept the sensible recommendations of the Select Committee?

Mr. Lilley: I have introduced a number of reforms to deal with exactly the problem of housing benefit fraud. The Labour party opposed them all. I introduced penalties and rewards for local authorities—particularly Labour-controlled authorities—that had done shamefully little to crack down on housing benefit fraud, which was


their responsibility. We want to know when the hon. Gentleman will produce concrete proposals on anything. John Smith set up a social justice commission to review social security policy. When it reported, the Leader of the Opposition promised to review its proposals and ordered the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) to review that review. As soon as his hon. Friends make any concrete proposals, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) promises a further review. The hon. Gentleman is a serial reviewer.

Sir James Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State detect a certain convergence of views between the two Front Benches on the need to contain escalating social security spending, which will otherwise race out of control in the next century?

Mr. Lilley: I wish that there were a convergence between the two Front Benches on the issue of social security, but the Labour party has opposed every reform that I have introduced. Every Labour proposal involves increased spending. What Labour Members describe as "hard choices" are simply methods of financing further Government expenditure by taking away money from ordinary families. I am afraid that Labour remains the party of high spending.

Social Security Reforms

Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the long-term effect on public spending of his social security reforms. [28811]

Mr. Lilley: The major reforms that I have announced to date are expected to reduce public expenditure by £5 billion a year at today's prices by the turn of the century. That will rise to £15 billion a year in the longer term.

Mr. Booth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whereas Conservative policies are based on fairness and targeting help to those who are most in need, those of the Opposition are weighed down by the millstone of past commitments and the albatross of future divisions?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the Opposition have been unable to produce any concrete proposals for reforming the social security system. We were promised six months of thinking the unthinkable and then some concrete, costed, detailed proposals. Instead, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) made a speech that even his friends thought he would regret. I shall quote one of them, writing in The Spectator:
he is a decent fellow"—
I share that view—
and I cannot believe that he could re-read his own text without embarrassment.
The Opposition should forget about thinking the unthinkable and just do some thinking.

Ms Glenda Jackson: How can the Secretary of State possibly know what future benefits there will be when the reply that I received from his Department in response to

a series of questions asking how many claimants have been taken off the benefit register in only two benefit offices in response to his social security benefits changes was that no such information is held and the cost of obtaining it would be disproportionate? Is it not the case that he neither knows nor cares how many people are living in penury because of his brutal changes?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady knows that we have put forward and implemented detailed, concrete and costed proposals. The fact that the information is not necessarily broken down parish by parish does not discount that achievement. When the Labour party offers concrete, costed proposals, she will be in a position to argue and to ask those sorts of questions.

Benefits System (Computerisation)

Mr. Atkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to announce the decision on equipment for the computerisation of the benefits system. [28812]

Mr. Lilley: On 15 May, I announced that Pathway Group Ltd. had won the contract to design, install and operate the equipment that will automate the payment of benefits at post offices.

Mr. Atkins: I welcome the fact that a British company, ICL, has led the Pathway consortium to winning the biggest computer contract in Europe to cope with the problems of fraud. As it is also coupled with the innovative software of companies such as Escher and De la Rue, does my right hon. Friend agree that the benefit card will go a long way to solving the problems of fraud and thereby provide substantial sums of money for those in real need?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's welcome for that further step toward the introduction of the benefit payment card. Over the lifetime of the eight-year contract, we expect to save more than £1 billion a year by virtually eliminating method of payment fraud on order books and giros. It will make life easier for claimants and they will be less vulnerable to theft and attack. It will save the taxpayer money and reinforce the viability of the national network of post offices.

Mr. Miller: Some months ago, the Secretary of State agreed with me about the importance of maintaining the privacy of personal data on his Department's computers. Will he publish any evidence that he has submitted to the Home Office's prior options review regarding the function of data protection in the registrar's office, or were they simply weasel words, as he has not submitted any such evidence?

Mr. Lilley: We must stick by our duty to maintain the confidentiality of the data that we receive from benefit claimants and recipients. I will happily see whether I can publish any evidence and give it to the hon. Gentleman in order to assist him with his inquiries.

Mr. Nigel Evans: My right hon. Friend has said that computerisation and the benefit payment card will help to crack down on fraud. Will he give a commitment to


publicise the telephone number that the public can use to provide information about those who are fraudulently claiming benefit?

Mr. Lilley: Members of the public throughout the country help us by providing information about benefit fraud and abuse, and they do so by telephoning their local benefit agency. We are running spotlight campaigns throughout the country which focus on particular areas. We urge those who have drifted into fraud to make good their arrangements with us and invite people to help us. I am happy to say that thousands of people are providing information and we are making substantial savings as a result.

Jobseeker's Allowance

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the eligibility criteria for those seeking the jobseeker's allowance. [28814]

Mr. Roger Evans: A number.

Mr. Sheerman: Is it not a fact that there is room for a decent jobseeker's allowance in this country? However, will not the allowance that the Government are introducing penalise at least a quarter of a million people who will be worse off after its introduction? Why is it that, every time the Government tinker with and slash the welfare system, they make people's lives worse rather than better?

Mr. Evans: There are many winners from the jobseeker's allowance: those who benefit from the earnings top-up, the four week run-on for housing benefit and so on. The interesting query arising from the hon. Gentleman's question is whether the Labour party is committed to abolishing that allowance. If it is, that represents another spending pledge of £170 million a year. Added to what Labour Front-Bench Members have spent already this afternoon, their expenditure would amount to £475 million each year.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Is that not what we expect from a party that only thinks the unthinkable and, when it comes to implementing something, only says the undoable?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right: the Labour party is deeply divided and unfit for office.

Mr. Skinner: When are the Government going to deal with that other jobseeker's allowance whereby 40 Tory Members of Parliament have jobs on the side, moonlighting? They get massive allowances, but they do not have the guts to reveal them in the parliamentary register. The Tory party takes money from Serbs and all the rest of them to finance the general election. Let us get rid of those allowances.

Mr. Evans: Union paymasters deeply divided and unfit for office—the hon. Gentleman makes my point.

Pensioners

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the annual effect of inflation on the number of pensioners eligible for social security payments in addition to the state pension. [28815]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): Benefits for pensioners are uprated annually in line with inflation. The Government's low inflation policy has meant that benefits retain their value over the year—in contrast to 1974 to 1979, when inflation was running as high as 27 per cent. Pensioners' savings, too, are protected and able to grow. Investment income now contributes an average of £27.40 per week to their income—unlike the earlier period, when high inflation all but wiped out their savings' real value.

Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour levels of inflation hurt pensioners in two ways: first, by weekly devaluations of the spending power of their benefits between upratings; and, secondly and most importantly, by wiping out the value of their savings? Does he have any estimate of the number of pensioners who, today, are still adversely affected by Labour's achievement of 25 per cent. annual inflation?

Mr. Heald: As a result of inflation in the 1970s, people who had saved all their lives saw their life savings destroyed by inflation. Under this Government, increasingly more pensioners have savings of higher value, leading to a rise in income of 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979.

Mr. William O'Brien: What is the Minister's response to my constituents who received the pension increase that he outlined, but who then suffered a decrease in housing benefit and in council tax refund and who received from Yorkshire Water a demand that is 2.5 per cent. above the inflation rate—leaving them worse off than before the pension increase?

Mr. Heald: The increase—which was 3.9 per cent., based on the retail prices index in September—takes into account all increases in costs. The average income has now increased by 51 per cent. since 1979. That would not have happened under Labour.

Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that 66 per cent. of recently retired people now receive income from an occupational pension, compared to only 55 per cent. in 1979? What does he think an inflation rate of 27 per cent. would do to that occupational pension, were we to return to inflation rates that existed under the previous Labour Administration?

Mr. Heald: The same betrayal that happened in the 1970s would happen again. That is why it is vital that pensioners continue to support the Government, who have so much improved their position over the years.

Cold Weather Payments

Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to be able to announce the outcome of this year's review into the cold weather payments monitoring stations. [28816]

Mr. Roger Evans: A comprehensive review is currently under way. Any proposals to change the existing weather stations or postcode links will be laid before the House in the autumn.

Mr. Kennedy: As a part of that review, will the Minister give me at least an interim update on what has happened since we last met vis-a-vis the Tiree weather station trigger point and those parts of my constituency that are currently adversely affected? Is he more optimistic or more pessimistic since we last spoke?

Mr. Evans: Tempted though I am to answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I cannot do so. He came to see me and, like many other hon. Members, made representations, all of which will be most carefully considered.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend is conducting his review, will he remember that there are parts of the United Kingdom that are colder than others, and that those parts are not always in the most northern extremes? Therefore, one must remember that people who suffer, suffer equally badly, regardless of where they are, if the temperature is low.

Mr. Evans: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I should emphasise that weather stations are chosen in consultation with the Meterological Office, using its judgment and expert climatological experience.

Mrs. Ewing: The Minister will remember that, in his response to a parliamentary question, he said that it normally took 63 per cent. more fuel to heat a gas-fired house in Braemar than to heat such a house in Bristol. When considering the replacement of weather monitoring stations, will he take into account the prevailing weather conditions, which include wind-chill factors and damp and are not solely related to cold snaps during the winter? Will he also accept the recommendations of the all-party warm homes group?

Mr. Evans: I shall take into account all representations that are made, but the wind-chill factor is a rather difficult element to reflect in a national scheme.

Child Benefit

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received in favour of abolishing child benefit. [28817]

Mr. Lilley: I have received no representations from any hon. Members in favour of the teenage tax proposals of

the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to abolish child benefit for over-16-year-olds staying on at school.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend find it surprising that the Labour party has taken a Trappist vow? Is he—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, going to ask a question relating to a matter for which the Minister has responsibility.

Mr. Marshall: Has my right hon. Friend received any representations advocating that child benefit be paid to foreigners and taken away from British children between the ages of 16 and 18? Does he find it surprising that there are those who want to pay more to teenagers who are not studying, and to take money away from those who are?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One reason for the extreme embarrassment among Labour Members at the proposal advanced by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is that, while he proposed to withdraw child benefit from those aged over 16 who stay on to acquire qualifications, the Labour party voted to extend it to foreigners who enter this country on the express understanding that they would not be entitled to British benefits. What a slap in the face for British children.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Davidson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May. [28832]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Davidson: Will the Prime Minister tell the House about the foreign policy implications, and the implications for our troops on the ground, of the governing party's decision to accept lots and lots of Bosnian Serb money? Does he accept that our troops cannot be seen as impartial when their commanders at home have accepted money from a—

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me put the hon. Gentleman straight. The Prime Minister has no ministerial responsibility whatever for any funding for his party. [Interruption.] Order. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about troops, that is an entirely different matter. Let me make it clear, in case any hon. Member wishes to ask the same question later, that the Prime Minister has no ministerial responsibility for money that goes to the Conservative party. Now, put the question properly and correctly.

Mr. Davidson: Does the Prime Minister accept that there are foreign policy implications, and implications for


our troops on the ground, in the position that the governing party has adopted with regard to Bosnian Serb money?

The Prime Minister: Nothing ever stands in the way of the interests of British troops as far as the Government are concerned.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity today to take note of the report of the Transport Select Committee on airport capacity? Will he undertake to give serious consideration to the formulation of a long-term framework for airport policy, possibly including the provision of an estuarial airport, so that there may be environmental relief for the existing London airports?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly look carefully at the report to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Blair: In the light of the concern expressed even in Government circles about the funding of political parties, is not the right, fair and honourable thing to do to widen the remit of the Nolan committee so that the funding of all political parties could be looked at in a proper and impartial manner?

The Prime Minister: No. I do not believe that that is the right way to proceed. Party funding has been investigated by the Home Affairs Select Committee, which made a number of recommendations on the openness of party accounts. The Conservative party accepted all those recommendations: the Labour party has not accepted all those recommendations. If the Labour leader is concerned about the matter, perhaps he will now commit himself to do so.

Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister has allegations to make about any party's political funding, is not the proper and reasonable thing to do to refer the matter to the Nolan committee so that it can consider it impartially? If the governing party does not accept that, the inevitable question that everyone will ask is what it has got to hide.

The Prime Minister: The leader of the Labour party may not have heard in the hubbub, but I answered his second question—since it was the same as his first question—a few moments ago. I will repeat it for him. The matter has been investigated by the Home Affairs Select Committee. We follow the remit it set out: the Labour party does not.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Does Mr. Blair wish to come back?

Mr. Blair: I do. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Be quiet.

Mr. Blair: I rise by popular request. When gifts are disguised as loans and money is accepted from foreigners, most people in this country would think—would they not?—that the best thing would be to have the Nolan

committee consider party funding, so that justice could be done and be seen to be done and not covered up and hidden by the Conservative party.

The Prime Minister: It is really no use the leader of the Labour party flying into a tantrum. It is only in the Labour party that donations and money buy influence. In the Labour party, the trade unions provide the funds in return for votes at Labour's party conference and the party's trade union paymasters still have a say in Labour's election manifesto. That is the real scandal in party funding and the Labour leader cannot duck it.

Mr. Jessel: Here is a popular matter. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, this morning, the National Heritage Select Committee reported on the national lottery? It said that the national lottery is a huge success. It is twice the success hoped for by the most optimistic optimists.

The Prime Minister: It is undoubtedly a great success and is raising huge sums of money for good causes. I am especially pleased to note that the fears expressed by so many people some months ago that charitable donations would fall are now shown to be wrong. In addition to the fact that donations have risen, a substantial amount from the lottery fund also goes to charities.

Mr. Ashdown: Has the Prime Minister ever discussed with Government officials donations from Serb sources to the Conservative party?

The Prime Minister: I do not discuss donations to the Conservative party with civil servants, nor have I. The right hon. Gentleman should know—it was pointed out to the House some time ago—that I devolved any responsibility whatever for party fund raising more than three years ago to avoid any possible conflict of interest. I did that not recently, but several years ago.

Mr. Day: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the efforts of Mr. Gerry Adams to try to distance Sinn Fein from the IRA? Will my right hon. Friend remember that, when Mr. Adams tells us that he has consulted the IRA, he has merely looked in his bathroom mirror?

The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that Sinn Fein and the IRA are two sides of the same coin. That point is well known to every right hon. and hon. Member. We believe that it is extremely important that the talks on Northern Ireland are successful. The only way in which Sinn Fein will find itself a part of those talks is if there is a clear-cut, unequivocal ceasefire by the IRA. In the absence of that, Sinn Fein will not be part of the talks. I hope that that is entirely clear to Sinn Fein, to the IRA and to every hon. Member.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May. [28833]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Prentice: Given the respective states of their finances this time last year, can the Prime Minister tell the House why his Government are still massively in debt but his party, all of a sudden, is not?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady looks at the figures, she will see a substantial reduction in the fiscal deficit; the figure has been falling for some time and will go on falling. I am sure that she will be pleased about that.

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May. [28834]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Sumberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hundreds of thousands of families have cause to be grateful to him for his introduction, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the tax-exempt special savings account? Is that not the right way to create a real stakeholder society, rather than abolishing child benefit and imposing new taxes on cars, which one half of the Labour party wishes to do and the other half does not?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right in both aspects of his question. TESSAs have proved a huge success. Literally billions of pounds have been saved by families in TESSAs; many of them are now coming to maturity, and a large proportion of that matured sum is now being reinvested. I believe that that is the right way to encourage wealth, for the determination of individual purchases and to pass on between generations. We believe in the acquisition of wealth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am pleased to hear that the Opposition do not believe in that. It explains their proposal for a tartan tax, and the shadow transport spokesman's desire to tax people more often; it explains their proposal to tax families with youngsters going through A-levels and their proposal to tax everything that they can possibly lay their hands on to fund their expenditure plans. I am happy to set out the clear difference between our party and the Labour party on spending and taxes.

Mr. Fatchett: Has the Prime Minister seen the report on Yorkshire Water's failure last summer to deliver a regular and uninterrupted water supply to the people of west Yorkshire? Does he recognise that that privatised company failed in its obligations to the people of west Yorkshire and in its obligation not to put at risk the health and economic activity of those people? Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time that the people of west Yorkshire benefited from Yorkshire Water and had a reduction in their water bills? Can the Prime Minister explain why he is the only person in the country who now seems prepared to defend the privatised Yorkshire Water?

The Prime Minister: I am interested to note that the hon. Gentleman still has such innate hostility to private ownership. I am delighted to say that large numbers of people yesterday showed no innate hostility to buying Railtrack when, once again, we had a privatisation that was massively over-subscribed.
I made it perfectly clear that we want Yorkshire Water to consider and to take action, as the commissioners have recommended that it should. It has begun to do so. It has completed a £100 million programme of pipeline and pumping station construction and this year it has made a £12 million investment in leakage reduction. Those are

the measures that we expect it to take so that it can provide the service that consumers in Yorkshire expect and deserve.

Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May. [28835]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to endorse the timely and apposite speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary at the European Research Group last Friday? May I especially draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Home Secretary's suggestion that some states in a flexible Europe should be able to repatriate powers from Brussels? In that regard, could not Her Majesty's Government give notice at the intergovernmental conference that we intend to repatriate to our country control over our own agriculture and fisheries, and make British laws superior to European laws?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I first raised the question of what subsequently became called variable geometry in Europe well over two years ago, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) when he was Foreign Secretary. We have no doubt that that is the direction in which the European Union must develop as it enlarges in future. In relation to fisheries, as I have said to the House before, we shall be seeking changes in the common fisheries policy in the intergovernmental conference.

Madam Speaker: Rev. Martin Smyth.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I will take the point of order after questions and statements.

Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the Prime Minister's earlier response, does he accept that it is not enough for Sinn Fein to say, "We are no longer part of the IRA'" when, through its leadership, it has at no time condemned the atrocities and bombings of the IRA? It would be only in that context that anyone could have confidence in it as a qualified political party.

The Prime Minister: I hope that everyone would condemn terrorist outrages. There can be no justification for them. As we have made clear, we expect every party that is eligible to take part in the talks that will take place after 10 June to accept at the outset, without equivocation, each and every aspect of the Mitchell principles. That is an essential prerequisite to taking part in the talks.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that points of order are taken after statements, of which there are two today. The first is from the Prime Minister.

EU Beef Ban

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on our continuing efforts to get the ban on British beef and beef products lifted, and on the implications for our wider European policy.
As the House will know, we have been making every effort with the European Commission and with the member states to lift the ban on beef and beef products imposed two months ago by the European Union. We appreciate the difficult situation on the beef markets of a number of member states, the fragile state of consumer confidence throughout Europe, and the political pressures faced by a number of Governments, but we have put in place a wide range of measures to ensure that all products reaching the market are safe on any normal definition of the word.
As a result of controls on feed, the incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Britain is falling rapidly, and will continue to do so. There can no longer be any conceivable justification for the ban remaining in place. It is having a hugely damaging effect on the beef industry throughout Europe.
We have explained very clearly the extent of the measures that we have taken—going well beyond those in many other European Union member states—to ensure the safety of British beef and beef products. The Commission has played a notably helpful role in following carefully the scientific advice.
As a result, the Commission recently made a proposal to lift the ban on gelatine, tallow and semen. That is based on the scientific evidence that those products are safe when produced in agreed ways. A majority of member states supported that proposal when it was put to the standing veterinary committee yesterday, but it did not attract the required qualified majority to enable it to take effect. I should like to thank those countries that supported it, and President Santer and Commissioner Fischler for their determination to put the matter to the vote.
President Santer and Commissioner Fischler have confirmed that they stand by the proposal that they put to the standing veterinary committee yesterday. That proposal has to be confirmed by the Commission tomorrow. It will then be submitted to the Agriculture Council on 3 and 4 June. Under the procedures, the proposal would then be implemented unless there were a simple majority against it in the Council.
There is therefore a prospect of progress on that narrow front. I am grateful for the firm view taken by the Commission, and for the support of the majority of member states. However, the present position is clearly unacceptable. A balanced proposal based on the best scientific advice has been ignored by a number of member states, in some cases despite prior assurances of support. I must tell the House that I regard such action as a wilful disregard of Britain's interests, and, in some cases, a breach of faith.
Moreover, we have still been unable to reach agreement on further steps towards a progressive lifting of the wider ban, which is clearly our main objective. Some of our partners are reluctant even to contemplate moves in that direction, for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the science involved.
Important national interests for Britain are involved in this matter. I cannot tolerate those interests being brushed aside by some of our European partners, with no reasonable grounds to do so. The top priority of our European policy must be to get the unjustified ban on beef derivatives lifted as soon as possible and to establish a clear path for the lifting of other aspects of the wider ban. We shall continue our present efforts, although these are not enough.
We have a strong legal case against the ban as a whole, and particular aspects of it. We made it clear from the outset that we believed the ban to be unlawful and disproportionate, and that we would therefore be bringing proceedings. Those proceedings will begin this week. We shall also begin this week our claim for interim measures, aimed at achieving those interim remedies unreasonably denied us in negotiation. Although our wider proceedings will inevitably take time to be heard, the application for the interim remedies should be heard within two to six weeks at the outside.
The interim measures application has a number of separate elements. One is the lifting of the ban on gelatine, tallow and semen. If the Agriculture Council does not approve the lifting of the ban on 3 and 4 June, we shall ask the court to lift it. We shall also be asking the court to lift the worldwide ban on exports of British beef. The beef is safe, and there is no practical possibility of it being reimported into the Community.
A third element is the ban on beef from specialist beef herds, in particular slow-maturing, grass-fed herds that have never seen a single case of BSE and are among the finest in the world. As soon as appropriate verification schemes are in place—and preparations are already well advanced—we shall ask the Council to lift this ban— [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order to hear the statement.

The Prime Minister: I repeat that a third element is the ban on beef from specialist beef herds. That is not justified. As soon as appropriate verification schemes are in place, we shall ask the Council to lift the ban. If we get no satisfaction, we shall again pursue the legal remedies open to us.
But those legal steps are not in themselves sufficient. We shall continue to press the scientific case on our partners and pursue our own programme to eradicate BSE. I have to tell the House that, without progress towards lifting the ban, we cannot be expected to continue to co-operate normally on other Community business.
I say this with great reluctance, but the European Union operates through good will. If we do not benefit from good will from partners, clearly we cannot reciprocate. Progress will not be possible in the intergovernmental conference or elsewhere until we have agreement on lifting the ban on beef derivatives and a clear framework in place leading to lifting of the wider ban.
We will raise the question of the ban at all Councils, including the Foreign Affairs Council. If necessary, we shall seek special Councils. I shall make it clear that I expect agreement on how to deal with those problems to be behind us by the time the European Council meets in Florence on 21 and 22 June. If it is not, the Florence meeting is bound to be dominated by the issue. It could


not proceed with our normal co-operation unless it faced up to the crisis of confidence affecting not only consumers but Governments throughout Europe.
That is not how I wish to do business in Europe—but I see no alternative. We cannot continue business as usual within Europe when we are faced with the clear disregard by some of our partners of reason, of common sense and of Britain's national interests. We continue to want to make progress through negotiation; but if that is not possible, we are bound to use the legal avenues open to us and the political means at our disposal.
I believe that the whole House recognises the strength of our case and the urgent need for progress. The approach that I have outlined deserves to command support throughout the House.

Mr. Tony Blair: Let us now find out exactly what the Prime Minister means by that statement. We share the great disappointment at the failure to get the ban at least partially lifted. We believe that there is no justification whatever for its continuing. The right regulations are now in place, and all reasonable scientific measures have been taken. Of course we shall support the Government in any sensible moves to ensure that the negotiations are successful.
There is no doubt about the deep sense of frustration, especially if, as the Prime Minister says, assurances have been given privately and then broken. However, can I now be clear about exactly what the Prime Minister proposes? As I understand it, he is saying that, unless there is both an agreement to lift the ban on derivatives—as we know, that may happen for other reasons—and a framework in place for easing the wider ban totally by 21 June, Britain will engage in a policy of non-co-operation.
May I ask two questions about that? First, what does the Prime Minister believe would be an acceptable framework and time scale for easing the wider ban? Secondly, and more importantly, I ask him to be specific as to what the policy of non-co-operation actually means. For example, does it mean—[Interruption.] Conservative Members—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Marlow, do be quiet.

Mr. Blair: With all due respect, before judgment can be passed on the policy of non-co-operation, we must know exactly what is meant by it.
For example, does the policy mean non-payment of European contributions, or doing anything in breach of treaty obligations, as many of the Prime Minister's hon. Friend would like? Will it involve a boycott of European institutions, non-attendance at meetings, or attendance with silence? Or does it mean refusal to participate in any other discussions at the intergovernmental conference unless the ban is lifted? Will the policy involve, as we read in the newspapers yesterday, the blocking of progress on Europol, and Europewide co-operation on policing? That suggestion has been made.
I assume from what the Prime Minister said that he has a clear strategy. At the moment the language is strong, but there is an absence of particulars as to exactly what it means. [Interruption.] It is the Prime Minister who is proposing the policy, so we should be clear what he means by it.
The right hon. Gentleman's statement should not mask or disguise the wider questions that must be asked about the Government's handling of the BSE crisis. There has been profound dissatisfaction with the way in which the negotiations have been conducted. What is the current negotiating position of other countries? What are they now asking us to do?
May I ask the Prime Minister about a specific point that has been raised by hon. Members from all parties? Is not the reason for the opposition of some member states to lifting the ban the collapse in their own consumer confidence? Does that not put us in a Catch-22 position, in that, to raise confidence in these countries, we need to lift the ban; yet to lift the ban, we need to raise confidence?
Should not one part of our strategy be a massive information and propaganda exercise in other member states—this has been suggested by representatives of the farming interests and by hon. Members from all parties— to tell those states exactly what we are doing, why it has dealt with the problem and why our beef is safe? May I put it to the right hon. Genetleman that farmers in this country—[Interruption.] Many farmers are deeply concerned about the situation, and would like some answers from the Prime Minister.
Is there not now a yawning discrepancy between what Ministers are saying about the current slaughter scheme and what the farming industry is saying? Reports from all parts of the country suggest that there is insufficient capacity in the abattoirs, confusion in the list of approved abattoirs, problems with collection centres, inadequate cold storage and uncertainty about the details of compensation. Does the Prime Minister agree that that situation cannot possibly be tolerated any longer?
Is not the incompetence with which the scheme is now being administered of a piece with the serial incompetence that has characterised the Government's handling of BSE? Is it not true that, throughout the early 1990s and late 1980s, the Government utterly failed to take action on BSE, although constant warnings were being given by Opposition Members that they had to act? The Government's response has been too late at virtually every stage of the crisis. Whatever the purpose of the Prime Minister's statement today, it should not obscure the incompetence with which the issue has been handled by him.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that no attempt was made before the announcement on 20 March to speak either to the farming industry or to our European partners to warn them or to secure their agreement to the measures that were being taken? Can he imagine any other Government behaving in that way? Does he accept that, at every stage—the years up to March 1996, the announcement itself, the policy of the slaughter scheme and the conduct of negotiations—his Government have shown a talent for error? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. [Interruption.] Order.

Mr. Blair: We are entitled to ask questions about the Government's handling of the issue. These are the questions that are being asked outside this House. The Prime Minister has embarked on a new initiative today.
I assume that he has a clear understanding of what it will mean in practice. I certainly hope so, because otherwise he will make a serious situation even worse.

The Prime Minister: The leader of the Labour party has a great gift for hindsight, but very little for foresight. In all of that long, rambling address, he did not express a single opinion on how to handle the matter in any respect. In that, he was consistent with the approach of the Labour party from the outset of this national problem.
Let me answer those of the right hon. Gemtleman's questions that were clear. We are seeking a plan for a progressive lifting, and have already been discussing that with the Commission—starting with the beef derivatives and moving on progressively through herds that are clear of BSE, with a stepped lifting of the ban. That is under detailed discussion with the Commission.
On what I had in mind when I spoke about us not being able to reciprocate if we were not receiving good will and co-operation from Europe, I will be quite specific with the right hon. Gentleman and the House.
I do not believe that we will be able to agree any matters requiring unanimity until such time as we are able to agree on how to deal with this crisis with our European partners. I do not believe that we will be able to make progress at the intergovernmental conference, and any agreement that may be reached against our wishes at that stage we would reopen at the point at which we were again in a position to reach agreement with our partners. We will certainly take the issue to Florence and ensure that it dominates the proceedings at the Florence Council. There will not be co-operation with Europe until our partners in Europe are prepared to sit down and co-operate with us.

Mr. Blair: What does this mean?

The Prime Minister: I have just explained to the right hon. Gentleman. If he reads Hansard, he will find it perfectly clear. I am sorry that he is being quite so slow on this occasion.
As to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about 20 March, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture did speak to Commissioner Fischler before the statements in the House. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the question was leaked in a Labour-supporting newspaper on the morning of 12 March. We spent hours that morning discussing the matter with scientists, before doing what he would have condemned us for if we had not done—coming straight to the House to report on precisely what was happening. He tries to suggest at this stage that we should not have come to the House, but should have gone outside and tried to fix deals. I wonder what he would have had to say this afternoon about us ignoring the House if we had done so.
Right from the beginning of the affair, we have followed the scientific advice on public health that we have been given—followed it as any responsible Government must and should. What is so frustrating is that the right hon. Gentleman asks what we are discussing with our European partners, but in the discussions it has

not yet proved possible to persuade some of those partners to engage seriously in debate on the decisions that need to be taken.
We are ready for that debate; some of our European partners are not. That is why we are taking the approach that we have taken this afternoon. It is necessary that they consider the problem seriously so that we can find a way through. Until they consider this problem, we shall be unable to consider other matters that are of interest and concern to them.

Sir Peter Hordern: Since beef consumption has been affected to a greater degree in the European Union than in this country, does it not make sense that it is in the interests of the EU countries to lift the ban as soon as possible, and that, above all, a decision should be based on scientific evidence and not on populism to do with their national electorates? That being the case, does it not make sense that any progress must be made through hard negotiation, and that nothing whatever will be achieved by threats of our leaving the EU?

The Prime Minister: Yes, there is no suggestion of our leaving the European Union, or, indeed, of indulging in actions that would be illegal before the British courts or the European Court. That is not what we are seeking to do. We need to continue with the negotiations, but it is essential that we are able to persuade our partners properly to negotiate on the details of how we proceed, and that, as yet, we have been unable to persuade all of them to do. Some of our European partners and the Commission have been, in many respects, extremely understanding and helpful, but we need to ensure that that extends right across the European Union, so that we can reach an agreed way forward.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister find any irony in the fact that the Government's hopes now rest in the operation of the majority voting system—something that they are determined to get rid of, or diminish, in the forthcoming IGC? Does he find any irony in the fact that the Government's first action in this matter is to run to the European Court of Justice— something that his Back Benchers want to get rid of and whose power some of his Cabinet Ministers want to diminish? Having listened to the Prime Minister's statement today, most people will conclude that the Euro-sceptic minority on his Back Benches has taken control of the Government's foreign policy, and that this has much more to do with appeasing them than restoring confidence in the beef market.
Does the Prime Minister realise that one reason why our European partners have so little confidence in the operation of the BSE eradication scheme is that it has sunk into disorder, confusion, chaos, farce and fiasco? Abattoirs across the country have been ringing me and my hon. Friends this morning to say that they are withdrawing from it.
As a specific example, St. Merryn Meat in Cornwall last week killed one fifth of the national cull under the BSE eradication scheme. Its operational viability has been on the basis of 1,750 head of cattle every week. Yesterday, that was reduced to 800, without compensation, notice or consultation. In consequence, the abattoir is liable to become economically non-viable and


close down, which would make 400 people redundant— and perhaps another 200 in two or three weeks' time. That is the direct result of the chaos that the Government have inflicted on agriculture, and it is one of the reasons why Europe has no confidence in them.

The Prime Minister: I can only say, after listening to his question, that, if abattoirs are ringing the right hon. Gentleman, I dare say they were soliciting for custom.
The right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the European Court show vividly how little he understands about either the policy we have set out or the European Court. We support the European Court and its proper responsibility in applying the single market; it is essential. What we oppose is the reinterpretation of laws by the European Court and its extension of laws, as in the Advocate-General's recent opinion on the working time directive. It is those matters that we are seeking to change.
The right hon. Gentleman may wish for a progressive determination of law by the European Court outside this country, but it is our wish for it to interpret laws that this House has agreed, not to determine laws by the extension of previous case law, which is what it has been doing. If he does not understand that, it explains why he is in favour of a federal Europe, which very few people in this country would wish to see.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement merits strong support throughout the House? Is he confident that his fellow Heads of State and Heads of Government, especially Chancellor Kohl, understand fully the tremendous political damage that has been done by their intemperate actions over the past eight weeks?

The Prime Minister: I very much hope that that point will be clear. I am seeking a proper dialogue and agreement: I am not seeking confrontation. I wish to find a way through that enables the British beef industry to return to what it was—one of the healthiest and best beef industries in the world. To ensure that there is proper negotiation, it is necessary to tell our partners that we no longer believe that the way in which the negotiations have been proceeding is satisfactory. That is the purpose of this statement. I shall certainly emphasise my hon. Friend's points to my fellow Heads of Government, although I think that it will be apparent to them from the statement.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: In disregard of the cackling of the chappies behind him on this serious issue, and, of course, with requisite respect, does the Prime Minister not realise that his handling of this matter is not going to achieve the aims that he thinks? Does he realise that the tactic of the empty chair, in his person, will not achieve the stature of the action that a de Gaulle might have achieved?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. I have not said that we will leave an empty chair and not be there; I have said that we will not agree matters that need to be determined by unanimity. We will be there, to ensure that this issue is raised on each and every occasion, so that people are aware of what is necessary. An empty chair would achieve nothing—the hon. Gentleman may be right about that. We will be there to argue the case of the British beef industry on every occasion.
That is the point that is really at issue. Forget all the extraneous matters that are sometimes raised; what is of concern to me is getting a proper agreement with our partners that can remove this ban and restore the health to the British beef industry that science says it should have. Science is on our side. Science is being rejected by our European Union partners, and we must make it clear to them that that is not acceptable.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although his statement is very welcome in tone, in order for us to be able to bring substantial pressure to bear in the run-up to Florence, it would be helpful to have another look at whether the suspension of payments would be illegal? Does he accept, moreover, that all that that would result in is a modest increase in interest that we might have to pay; whereas, if we did impose such a suspension of payments, it would bring the other members firmly to the negotiating table, as my right hon. Friend wants?

The Prime Minister: I have to tell my hon. Friend that it would involve breaking the law, and it would not be a question of having to face the European Court of Justice; it would, within a matter of days, be a question of having to face the courts in this country. For that reason and others, I am not attracted to measures that are illegal.
First, as we believe that the British beef industry is being unfairly treated, I do not think that we would help its case by an illegal act that would entrench opposition abroad. Secondly, I do not believe that it would be appropriate, because in any event the law is against us, and it would not be effective. That is why I have chosen the measures that I have announced this afternoon.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The lifting of the ban depends on the confidence of the European Commission, the standing veterinary committee and others that the BSE eradication programme is right and proper. How can that confidence be enhanced when the Minister of Agriculture behaves like a demented gambler in the last chance saloon, offering to double the number of cattle that might be culled, directly contrary to the scientific evidence he cites, which suggests that only the right number of cattle should be culled?
In those circumstances, why does not the Prime Minister do as he offered to do some days ago, personally take charge of this, and hold a European summit with other colleagues in Europe—or is he afraid to lose there as well?

The Prime Minister: We shall be having a European summit in Florence, and, as I have told the House, this will be the main issue on its agenda if it is not solved before then. A great deal of negotiation and discussion on science and other matters needs to be undertaken. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture has been discussing those matters in Europe and, daily, domestically, not only with the agricultural industry but with all the allied interests that have a direct interest in the beef industry as a whole.
There are two elements. The first and most important element is that it is in the interests of the British beef industry for us to determine a way to eradicate BSE. Forget any pressure that may be put on us by other people


or the ban by other people. If we forget that and put it entirely to one side, it is in the long-term interests of the British beef industry to eradicate BSE, so that there is world confidence in British beef. That is what we are doing, and we are not being subjected to undue pressure from other people about that. We are looking ourselves at what needs to be done and how best it shall be done.
In terms of slaughtering those animals that need slaughtering, about 38,000 have been slaughtered, and the slaughterhouses are moving towards capacity. I will, of course, look into the particular case that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) mentioned, but they are moving towards capacity. We have to look at that in our own interests and in the interests of our own industry.
So this is not just a matter of a disagreement with our European partners, important though that is, because they have imposed the ban. Quite separately from that, we need to look domestically at how we get rid of BSE, and that is what we are doing.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Is the Prime Minister aware that the statement he has made today will be greatly welcomed and strongly supported by the British people right across the nation, and that they will have noted with distaste the fact that, at a moment of national crisis, the leaders of the two Opposition parties have shown themselves incapable of speaking for Britain?

The Prime Minister: I think that what my hon. Friend has had to say will find a echo in every part of the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dun woody: Exactly what is the Prime Minister proposing? He is wiping out the beef industry, including the veterinary section and the slaughterhouses, in my constituency, so it is bizarre to hear him seriously say that he intends to implement sanctions, without making it clear what they are. It is even stranger to hear him say that he intends to go to a court which he himself has labelled wholly political, unacceptable and irresponsible. If that is his solution to the problem, I am not surprised that the whole farming community in my constituency is in despair.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady understands so little that she tells the people in her constituency what she has just told this House, I am not surprised that they are in despair—it is probably with her. I have already answered each of her three questions at least once.
My purpose is to save the British beef industry. I just wish that some Opposition Members would stand up for it for once.

Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend will know only too well how much the president of the National Farmers Union and all farmers in this country welcome the strong links that he has established with them over the past eight weeks. Can he assure me that the link will be directly maintained with the president of the NFU? Can he further assure me that we will not up the ante in the slaughter policy week by week in the vain hope of attracting support in Europe? Finally, will my right hon. Friend give the lead in a "buy British" campaign in this country?

The Prime Minister: From what I have seen, I think that many people have already followed that last piece of advice. I have nothing but praise for the way Sir David Naish, Mr. Ben Gill and the leaders of the farmers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have behaved throughout. The whole agriculture industry has behaved with great restraint and maturity. I am grateful for the advice that it has given us. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend's door is open to representatives of the industry at any time; so is mine, whenever that should prove necessary.
No one is proposing a wholesale slaughter of herds just to satisfy the wishes of people overseas. That proposition is not under consideration. The science does not support such a proposition, as my right hon. and learned Friend has repeatedly stated in Europe and the United Kingdom.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he sees a verification scheme as a clear path towards the complete lifting of the ban? Given that such a scheme has existed for a good number of years in Northern Ireland, will he consider asking our European partners to lift the ban in respect of that region of the United Kingdom, if only as a test of good faith?

The Prime Minister: There is indeed a good verification scheme in Northern Ireland. We seek to ensure a proper verification scheme across the United Kingdom—that is one component in the progressive lifting of the ban to which I referred earlier. I shall certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend dismiss the brazen effrontery of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats today? Will he accept that this country owes a great debt to our farming industry, which has served us well in times of crisis? We should stand by it now.
Will my right hon. Friend accept that, when dealing with the European Union, we are dealing not with our partners but with our competitors, and that that should always be borne in mind? This afternoon, my right hon. Friend has spoken for Britain.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with him about the agriculture industry. I can certainly confirm that we stand by the British beef industry, and will continue to do so.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the past few days' negotiations have shown that simply asking Europe to accept an increase in the culling programme will not be enough and that we really need the over-30-months slaughter scheme to be fully operational throughout Britain? In Wales, for example, only 700 cattle were slaughtered last week and this week the figure should increase to at least 2,000 to 2,500. Does he recognise that, when our European partners can see that the scheme is fully operational, it will be far easier to persuade them to lift the partial ban?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman sets out precisely the matters that we have been discussing with officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and the Cabinet Office in Brussels in the past week or so and at the innumerable meetings that my right hon. and learned


Friend has attended. Each and every matter that the hon. Gentleman has just raised has been among those that were discussed with the Commission and our European partners. It is precisely because we have discussed all those matters, yet we are still unable to determine what further is sought by the European Union from the United Kingdom before it will lift the ban, that there is such frustration over those negotiations.
I did not lightly come to the House this afternoon. I brought the measures to the House because there is deep frustration over the nature of the discussions and the fact that, when we make proposals, there is no clear indication whether they are acceptable or, if not, in which areas they are unacceptable. It is no good our partners making demands of us and not sitting down and discussing with us precisely what those demands should be.
For those reasons of frustration, we have felt it necessary to illustrate the importance that we attach to these matters and say that, until our European partners are prepared to sit down and discuss them in detail with us as they affect Wales, Northern Ireland and England, and the Aberdeen Angus industry in Scotland, we shall be unable to sit down and discuss with them other matters that are dear to them. That is why we shall block matters that require unanimity.

Mr. David Nicholson: Over the last eight weeks, Ministers—in particular, my right hon. and learned Friend—have shown extraordinary patience with our European partners, and we have seen hopes raised time after time only to be dashed again 24 hours later. Therefore, is it not clear that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has come to the House this afternoon to make this most welcome statement as a result of the fact that on these Benches, I hope elsewhere in the House, and also in the countryside, that patience with our European partners has now rapidly evaporated?
Is it not also clear that the response of the Leader of the Opposition shows not only that he is confused, because that I think we are familiar with, but that he is, on this subject, frankly rattled?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's generous words about my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: That will not save him.

The Prime Minister: A non-farmer speaks. In many cases, my right hon. and learned Friend has been the whipping boy for frustration, but I know the efforts that he has made to determine a way through a particularly difficult problem and to represent the interests of the fanning industry. When he reports to the House in a few moments, they will see again his efforts on behalf of Britain.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Prime Minister recall that, when he was asked precisely what the sanctions were, he said that Ministers would raise the matter at every meeting? Does that imply that they have not been doing that already during the past eight weeks?
The Prime Minister also said that he would get in touch with all the various leaders. They have been trotting across here to Britain in the past few weeks. The Prime Minister has invited President Chirac over here and filled him full of beef. He also had Helmut Kohl over here. It says something about the Prime Minister's influence with those leaders that he invited them over here, he wined and dined them, and then they voted against him—or they got somebody else to do their dirty work.
The Prime Minister should realise that the Common Market is now moving from social issues to economic and political issues. It is now dealing with issues on a political level. Why does he not have the guts to do the only thing he can do? When I used to negotiate with the pit manager, I would threaten to stop the wheels. If he had any guts, he would tell the people in the Common Market that we will stop the flow of money. That is the only real sanction he has.

The Prime Minister: It is always good to hear from new Labour.

Mr. Terry Lewis: That is insulting.

The Prime Minister: I could not comment about that. However, I hope that it is duly noted that Opposition Members below the Gangway consider it an insult to be referred to as "new Labour".
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that European leaders have been over here, I have wined and dined them and then they have gone home and voted against us. But President Chirac voted for us. The hon. Gentleman makes one assertion, and he gets it wrong. It is good to see that old Labour is alive and kicking, if not thinking. [Interruption.] I must say, it is very instructive to watch the body language above and below the Gangway. I hope that the cameras are pointed in that direction.
I must refer to some of the hon. Gentleman's omissions. He forgot to mention that we said that we would block all measures requiring unanimity—a number of which will come up in the next few weeks. He forgot that we said that we would block progress in the intergovernmental conference. The IGC cannot reach a conclusion without unanimity, so it cannot reach a conclusion unless this matter is completely determined. Neither will the present agenda at the foreign summit proceed unless it deals with the beef question.
Apparently none of those facts reached the hon. Gentleman. He clearly was not listening earlier, so I hope that he is listening now. [Interruption.] He may listen, but I fear that he does not understand.

Mr. Phil Gallie: In his words today, my right hon. Friend clearly identifies with the frustrations felt by many of my constituents who work in the agriculture and food processing industries. They recognise the need for dialogue in Europe. Their frustrations have grown in the past two months, and their lives have been totally disrupted. It is now time to make a stand, and they will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That statement presages a renewed attempt to reach agreement by negotiation. As my hon. Friend says, we are acting in the interests of the beef and allied industries, and we want to solve the problem as speedily as we can.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), has the Prime Minister noticed that Farming Ministers in three of the countries that voted against Britain yesterday—Germany, the Netherlands and Spain—have expressed an interest in the position of specialist beef herds, particularly those in Scotland and in Northern Ireland? The Prime Minister mentioned that in his statement.
I ask that the argument about specialist beef herds be put at the forefront of the United Kingdom strategy because it seems to offer a practical way forward. Eight weeks into the crisis, will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the Scottish Office to accelerate work on the verification schemes, which would allow us to trade on the reputation of Scottish beef and lead all beef back into European markets?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: the verification schemes are very important. We are accelerating progress on those schemes, not only in Scotland but elsewhere in the United Kingdom where there are no proper schemes in place. The point he raises is at the forefront of the negotiations.
I repeat that we are prepared to sit down and reach an agreement that will lead to a proper framework for lifting the ban comprehensively. However, other people must sit down with us. If they are not prepared to accept our offer to sit down and engage in constructive dialogue in order to bridge the difference between us, and if they simply say—as they have done—"We do not think what you are proposing is sufficient," but will not then engage in proper dialogue about what is sufficient, it is not a two-way dialogue.
I wish to obtain that two-way dialogue. It is largely frustration over that matter that has led to our decision to elevate the political imperative of reaching agreement on the issue for the farming industry.

Mr. Richard Alexander: My right hon. Friend's robust response today will get a wide welcome in the country, not least in the agricultural community. Is he aware, however, that, if the United Kingdom were to offer an increased cull of cattle beyond what is absolutely necessary, it would cause grave damage not only to the acceptability in the country of what we are doing but to our future milk and beef supplies? Those aspects must be considered, too.

The Prime Minister: I should like to deal with that point, because I know that it is a matter of concern to some of my hon. Friends.
I say emphatically that our proposals do not envisage culling whole herds in which BSE cases have occurred; that would not be justified on the science. The original

proposal for a selective cull was based on identifying cases of BSE in cattle born between 1990 and 1993 and to cull cattle born on the same farms at the same time— which therefore might reasonably have been expected to be exposed to the same infected feed. That was broadly estimated to lead to the culling of about 40,000 cattle. Further proposals would extend that to cover only cases of BSE that are confirmed in the future. In the interests of eradication, we would need to deal with those cases of BSE as well.
Those are the matters to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture referred last week, and not to a general slaughter of healthy cattle. I should like to make that point clear to the House, because it is a matter that has caused some concern among some of my hon. Friends and among the farming industry. I hope that the position is now clear. The proposals cover only cases of BSE that are confirmed in future.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Before the Prime Minister launches a war of bull semen against Europe, will he answer one simple question? Given the market signals from the United States, which banned British beef in 1987, from Westminster council, which stopped serving it in its schools a couple of years ago, and from Hong Kong, which banned British beef about two years ago, what retaliation does he propose to take against them?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should not sneer at an important industry.

Mr. MacShane: I was not sneering.

The Prime Minister: At the beginning of his question, he was sneering at an important industry. There is no doubt that he was sneering. People will have noticed that he was doing so, and they will have noticed many Labour Members' attitude on this issue.
We are seeking to have the ban lifted everywhere. We will be in discussion with Hong Kong, America, New Zealand, Australia and other countries that have previously banned British beef or beef derivative products. That is the reason why we are trying to deal comprehensively domestically with cases of BSE—so that there can be no credible shred of justification anywhere in the world for the ban on British beef.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his measured but forceful statement, and assure him that it will be welcomed by butchers, farmers and meat traders across my constituency. May I ask him to acknowledge that he is starting down a road of forceful but restrained escalation, and that, until there is a happy resolution to this matter, there can be no turning back?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. I did not lightly embark upon this course, and I am perfectly aware that we must proceed with this course until we have a satisfactory outcome.

Agriculture Council

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the discussion about BSE at and in the margins of the Agriculture Council on 20 and 21 May, at which I represented the United Kingdom with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, and my noble Friends the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Office and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
The standing veterinary committee voted late last night on a proposal that could have been expected, in due course, to bring about the lifting of the ban on gelatine, tallow and semen. However, a qualified majority was not established. Forty-eight votes—representing eight member states, including the United Kingdom—voted in favour, and 39 votes, representing seven member states, voted against.
This morning, the Commissioner informed the Council that the Commission would put the proposal to the Council. A special meeting of the Council to consider that and other matters will be held on 3 and 4 June. Under the procedures, the proposal will then be implemented, unless there is a simple majority against it in the Council.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has explained, it is extremely disappointing that no final decision has been taken on lifting the ban on those three products, for which the scientific case is overwhelming. The Council meeting fixed for 3 and 4 June provides a further opportunity, which should be taken.
I also explained to the Council the comprehensive nature of the measures that the United Kingdom has put in place to protect the public and to eliminate BSE. On the idea of a selective cull, I confirmed that the United Kingdom was in principle prepared to cull all animals in the three age classes 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93, identified by farm of origin, in respect of which a case of BSE had been found. I made it clear, however, that such a proposal would need the consent of the House, and that the opinion of right hon. and hon. Members would be influenced by what was said and done in Brussels and elsewhere in Europe. I have seen no evidence to justify going beyond the proposal that we have advanced.
The Government's first duty is to protect the public. We have put the necessary measures in place, as is confirmed by any unprejudiced and careful reading of the scientific evidence. Member states should now accept their responsibilities, and agree to a rapid ending of the ban.

Dr. Gavin Strang: May I reiterate that we fully share the Government's bitter disappointment at the failure of the standing veterinary committee even to agree to the modest proposal for the lifting of the ban on tallow, gelatine and semen?
Does the Minister feel that the confusion surrounding the implementation of the 30-month slaughter programme contributed to his lack of progress? May I remind him that it is seven weeks since he took that programme to the Council of Agriculture Ministers in Luxembourg? Is it not clear that there is still great confusion throughout the industry about its implementation? Indeed, divisions are developing between different sections of the industry.
Is it not time to consider whether some new initiatives are required in relation to the programme if it is to operate effectively?
May I put to the Minister the allegation that some abattoirs are refusing to take cattle aged over 30 months, thus forcing farmers to sell them in markets where the abattoir owners or their agents are able to buy the cattle at knockdown prices and make a profit at the expense of farmer and taxpayer? Is the Minister still certain that he is right in requiring that cattle for our food and cattle aged over 30 months that must be slaughtered and kept out of the food chain be slaughtered in the same slaughterhouses?
As for the additional selective slaughter programme— the programme that still involved 40,000 cattle at the time of last Thursday's debate; the Minister upped the figure to 80,000 on Friday—can the Minister explain clearly what is the proposal's current status? Is he saying that we will not go ahead with the second slaughter programme until we have a clear agreement on a timetable for the lifting of the overall ban on our beef and beef products?
The Prime Minister accused my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—most unfairly—of not making constructive suggestions. May I ask the Minister what progress has been made on three of our constructive suggestions? First, what progress is being made on the quality assurance scheme for late-maturing cattle, and will the Government extend such schemes to other beef breeds?
Secondly, has the Minister had a chance further to consider our call for an investigation into the 67 per cent. of BSE cases that are now in cattle born after the feed bans were implemented? He has acknowledged that after those bans were put in place in 1989 cattle have consumed a continuous stream of contaminated feed. Surely it would help the introduction of an additional slaughter programme if we were to identify the cattle most at risk. If we were to carry out an inquiry, it might help us to have a more closely targeted selective slaughter programme.
Thirdly, with regard to the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) a few minutes ago, will the Minister seriously consider the proposition that many people in countries such as Germany may not fully understand the measures that have been put in place in this country and that we should seek to address that by directly communicating to them— through people who speak their language in the media or in a clear booklet—what we are doing in the United Kingdom? We argue that proposition on the basis that there has been a return of confidence—not complete, but substantial—in the market in British beef, and that may partly be because the people understand that the Government are taking measures following the announcement on 20 March.
The Government are right to emphasise the importance of lifting the ban on our export of beef and beef products, because only then can we start to rebuild our markets. But that must not deflect the Minister from the priorities at home, including ensuring that all the measures to keep the BSE agent out of our food are effectively enforced and addressing the huge problems surrounding the slaughter programme, which are causing such suffering among farmers and others in the industry.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. In following the policy of slaughtering cattle over


the age of 30 months, to date about 38,500 beasts have been slaughtered. The standing veterinary committee did not focus to any great extent on that slaughter policy. My judgment is that the objections that have been advanced in the standing veterinary committee and elsewhere are primarily political in character, although scientific language is used as a cover for a political stance.
Further to the question of the slaughter policy, we are now operating very close to current capacity. We can increase capacity, as we discussed last week, by bringing on cold storage and additional incineration. The choke point is essentially the rendering capacity. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) mentioned specific allegations about behaviour bordering on misconduct, if not misconduct. If there are such cases, I hope that they will be brought to my attention.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained the position on additional slaughter, but perhaps I should repeat it. We are focusing on three class years, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93. If—in any of those class years-there has been a case or there is a case of BSE, we will go back to the farm of origin and find and slaughter the cohort. It is the future cases that I have introduced into the discussion in Europe.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked about the context in which the selective slaughter policy has been introduced. I have already made it plain to the Council in Brussels and to the Commission too that the proposals for a selective cull have to be considered in the context of programmes for relaxing the ban. Indeed, I said today at the Council that to secure a selective cull policy I would have to have the consent of the House of Commons. In truth, the House's opinion will be directly influenced by what is said and done in Europe, and I made that very clear to the Council today.
We completed consultation on the quality assurance scheme at the end of last week. We have now raised it with the Commission and the Commissioner himself specifically mentioned it to the Council this morning.
The hon. Gentleman will remember that last Thursday we discussed cattle born after the ban. The relevant figures are to be found in the dossiers that we have lodged with the Library. He will bear it in mind that, from the beginning of April, we placed a total prohibition on the incorporation of any mammalian protein in farm rations— food going to any farm animals.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have to safeguard the business of the House. Hon. Members who might be fortunate enough to be called on this statement should ask their questions briskly, and only one each. I am sure that the Minister will oblige by giving a speedy answer. Who rose on the previous statement and was not called?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that hundreds of farmers in my constituency will be delighted at the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in standing up to those of our European partners who do not have the slightest intention of lifting the ban on the export of beef, whatever offers we may make to try to win their support?
Those farmers are asking exactly how much European beef we are importing and why on earth we do not require as high a standard of quality in that beef as the Europeans require of British beef. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that would be not retaliation but justifiable action in defence of British beef producers?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's support. He made an important point about extending to Europe the specified bovine material controls that we now operate in countries where there are cases of BSE. We are raising that matter with the Commission. He asked about the importation into the United Kingdom of beef from European Union countries. The position is that cattle over the age of 30 months are affected by the general restriction now in place.

Mr. Paul Tyler: In view of the Prime Minister's reference to the National Farmers Union and the tribute that he paid, rightly, to its responsible attitude, is the Minister aware that in its briefing today it has said that the
30-month scheme is in jeopardy
and that "chaos reigns"? Is he aware that while he has been abroad a number of abattoirs, as a result of the chopping and changing of the intervention board, have threatened to get out of the scheme? Is he confident that, far from being in a state of growing deterioration, the scheme will be on stream by the next meeting of the Agriculture Council and that he will be able to report that, in his own words, the "necessary measures" are in place?

Mr. Hogg: As I have already said on a number of occasions, to date we have slaughtered about 38,500 head of cattle over the age of 30 months; the estimate for 21 May is that we will have slaughtered about an additional 4,188. I have seen reports in which supermarkets have said that they do not wish to take clean cattle for consumption from abattoirs that have been used for the cull. I discussed that point with the retailers last week.
I do not believe that that judgment is based on good science. However, if any abattoirs withdraw from the culling scheme, I believe that we will be able to fill the gap and to continue slaughtering at the capacity that is afforded by the renderers, as topped up by incineration and the cold storage facilities that we are bringing on stream.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, until eight weeks ago, the standing veterinary committee based its decisions on scientific facts and veterinary practice? Is not it an absolute disgrace and an indictment of their professional capacity that some of those vets have changed their minds on the orders of their political masters? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, if the principle of science and veterinary practice is not stuck to, when this whole sorry mess is over there will be an opening for the manipulation of food and other materials for reasons of disease, simply covering over bad trade practices, which the committee was designed to stop?

Mr. Hogg: There is much force in what my hon. Friend says. In some cases, the language of science has been used to advance political objectives or to conceal political


positions. I agree that, when forming policy, it is extremely important, as a general principle, to follow the science; otherwise, there is no clear benchmark.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the Minister confirm that he has heard reports that supermarket chains' meat buyers are considering not buying supplies from abattoirs that are participating in the culling of animals under this scheme? If those reports are true, will he have urgent talks with the heads of the supermarket chains to point out that there is no scientific basis for that fear and that their best contribution to enhancing consumer confidence in British beef's safety would be to recognise that the disease is not contagious in those circumstances?

Mr. Hogg: I touched on this point in answering the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). Last week—on Thursday night, I think—I discussed this very issue with supermarket representatives. There is no good reason why supermarkets should not take beef for consumption from abattoirs that are also being used for culling, provided there is a clear distinction in time and that appropriate measures are in place. It is worth reminding the House that the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee originally contemplated that, provided it was sold in a deboned state, beef from cattle over 30 months of age would be sold for human consumption.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a problem with the slaughter policy is that cattle have been earmarked for abattoirs but have not been able to go until perhaps the following week? The cost to farmers is running into hundreds of pounds. Is it not about time that we appointed someone— an individual of substance and quality—to oversee the policy? Should we not have a system whereby the discrepancy between the live weight and the dead weight is removed, so that abattoirs and marts operate on equal terms?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend might be reassured to know that, under the 30-month scheme, the cumulative total of cattle slaughtered in Scotland between 3 May and 21 May amounts to 9,997 beasts. The House will, of course, know that we do not possess powers of direction. We must rely on persuasion, negotiation and encouragement.

Mr. Walker: And advice.

Mr. Hogg: And advice. That is what is being done. If there are ways of reinforcing that process, we will gladly consider them.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: What consideration has the Minister given to the Consumer Association's suggestion today—following a poll showing that 71 per cent. of people believe that the Government withheld important information about BSE's risks—that an independent food authority should be set up?

Mr. Hogg: I do not agree with the criticism and I do not agree with the proposal.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of some farmers' concern

that dealers are doing sweetheart deals with abattoirs and are seeking to pick up cheap cattle from farmers who cannot get their cattle into the abattoir? Is he aware of the concern that some cattle will be able to get into the scheme under existing rates, but that other farmers, because of the difficulty of getting cattle to the abattoir in time, might lose out on the existing deal? Will he ensure that farmers who, through no fault of their own, are delayed in getting their cattle slaughtered receive exactly the same compensation as farmers who get in earlier?

Mr. Hogg: I understand my hon. Friend's points. On cattle that are not able to get into the abattoirs, my hon. Friend the Minister of State has made clear our position about the top-up payment being carried forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) will recall that on Thursday my hon. Friend the Minister of State outlined our thinking on an advance payment ultimately to be made under the slaughter scheme. That will provide considerable reassurance to the farmers of whom my hon. Friend speaks.
We are increasing slaughterhouse throughput under the 30-month scheme. We are operating very near to capacity, but it can be increased as we bring cold storage facilities into play and perhaps identify further disposal methods— incineration, for example.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: A rather bizarre auction is taking places: the 40,000 figure was raised to 80,000 and then rejected by the European Community, some of the members of which want perhaps 10 times that figure. That is not based on good science. What is the Ministry's best estimate of BSE's incidence in the present cattle herd? Is it under 1 per cent. perhaps 5 per cent. or up to 10 per cent?

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that it is sensible to answer the question in the form that it has been asked, but I can give the hon. Gentleman some idea of how many confirmed cases we expect. He will find our best estimate of likely figures in the dossier that we have placed in the Library, but I do not have the figures in front of me so I shall use broad figures. If we were to do nothing else by way, for example, of a selective cull, in the current year we expect about 8,500 cases, next year about 5,000 and in 1998 about 2,800. At the height of the epidemic in 1993 there were about 36,000 confirmed cases, which fell to about 15,000 last year.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, at times like these, we need to know who our friends are? Will he therefore say which countries said that they would support us but reneged on that commitment in the vote? Bearing in mind the earlier welcome and bullish approach of the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, will my right hon. and learned Friend support immediate action to protect the UK consumer on health grounds by banning imported beef and beef products from cattle that have not been raised, transported or slaughtered to the same high standards and welfare as are practised in this country?

Mr. Hogg: I think that I would turn my hon. Friend's point on its head by saying that no beef product in the world is created and produced in a better environment, or is subject to better and more sophisticated controls,


than British beef. One can honestly say that British beef is produced under the most rigorous controls anywhere in the world.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister has given assurances that the slaughter policy is near capacity: it is a mere trickle in Wales, which is a considerable worry to many thousands of farmers.

Mr. Alex Carlile: It is a disaster.

Mr. Llwyd: Yes, a disaster.
May I impress on the Minister the need for far more cold storage? Will he impress on the intervention board the need for that to be provided urgently?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that the throughput in Wales has been less than we would wish: about 1,000 beasts have been slaughtered under the 30-month scheme. Clearly, it needs to be accelerated and I agree that cold storage is a partial solution to the problem.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is not the grotesquely irrational response from European politicians rather depressing? Was any quantitative analysis made, comparing the risks of different forms of human activity, to put the matter in perspective when it was discussed in the Council? For example, is it not a far greater risk to get into one's car to drive to the supermarket to buy beef than, even on the most pessimistic assumptions of alarmists, it is to eat it? There is therefore an even greater case for banning all forms of motorised transport throughout Europe than there is for banning British beef.

Mr. Hogg: It has always been one of the problems that it is extraordinarily difficult to express risk in terms that are readily understood. That is why, when pressed on that point, Professor Pattison has said that, to use ordinary language, British beef is safe. That is the way in which he prefers to express risk and I endorse that approach. My hon. Friend is right about the depressing character of some of the conversations that we have had on this subject in recent months. In truth, usually the language is not that of considered judgment based on fact, argument or science, but rather an expression of concern about damage to domestic markets, which is then expressed in language of science. I do not think that that is the proper way around.

Mr. Brian Jenkins: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must realise that the problem is as bad in Germany—in fact, worse. Confidence in beef in Germany dropped dramatically after the Germans banned British beef, because it raised the possibility of beef not being safe. If the proposals to ban foreign beef were taken up, we would once again undermine the very beef market that we are trying to maintain in this country. It is a matter of consumer confidence. Supermarkets do not buy beef from abattoirs that participate in the culling scheme not because of science, facts or figures, but because they fear that they cannot sell the beef. Lifting the European ban does not matter if we cannot convince people.

Mr. Hogg: It is true that the consumption of beef in Germany has been gravely damaged. I have frequently

said to German Ministers that it would help confidence in Germany enormously if the ban were lifted. It would be an expression of confidence in beef generally. To put the argument differently, the fact that every time the Agriculture Council meets there is a row about the safety of beef is bound to have a deleterious effect on confidence in Germany and, indeed, in other countries of the Union where there has been a substantial reduction in consumption. I make those points to Agriculture Ministers.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his conduct in negotiations and on what he has said today. He has struck a bell that is in tune with what the British people want. Are our European partners aware that the House of Commons will not accept ever-increasing senseless culls, which are unjustified by science, and that the British taxpayer will not accept the bankrolling of an institution that acts irrationally? Will he reassure me on a local point, which I put to him in the agriculture debate last week, about the availability of abattoir facilities to local beef farmers?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour—indeed, my constituency Member. He is entirely right to say that the consent of the House of Commons is absolutely essential if a selective cull policy is to be adopted. I have made that very clear to the Council today and on a number of previous occasions. I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the lack of local abattoir facilities. I saw a number of farmers from our area on Friday and was able to say that very shortly an abattoir would be operating in Lincolnshire.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that nobody could have done more—day and often night—as a Minister for the farming industry than he has? Opposition Members' criticism is purely party political and not a matter of fact.
The beef breeder, who will obviously still lose money in getting his animal to be culled at top weight, is terribly worried that he cannot get his animals through the abattoirs. He is having to feed the animals and might still be three, four or five weeks away from getting them to the abattoir, which is costing more and more. Is it not possible for the animals to go to market and be weighed and tagged so that the farmer does not have to continue feeding them with feedstuffs? The animals can be put out to grass and their weight allowed to fall—they are to be culled and incinerated anyway. Farmers would not therefore lose more money by pursuing a policy that cannot be in their interests or necessarily in the interests of the policy that my right hon. and learned Friend is trying to promote.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind personal remarks: such remarks from one of the most senior Members of the House are particularly welcome. He is making an important and interesting suggestion on which I had not previously reflected. I shall consider what he has said. I suspect that the logistical problems would be too great; none the less, I shall consider his specific suggestion. I also draw to his


attention the concept of advance payments and our policy of operating slaughterhouses at their maximum, which I hope will go some way to meeting his constituency point.

Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister agree that although his policy of culling a particular cohort when reactor or BSE cases are found in that cohort will do quite a lot to help the farm of origin, it has meant that the problem has spread to every farm where the cohort has been by trade and sale? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the suckler herdsman who buys one of those cattle will have a problem several months down the road when suckler calves from such a contact herd go to market? Will he carefully consider how we are going to deal with that policy, since the suckler herdsman depends not on milk sales but on his calves and the subsidies that he receives every year?

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that if we pursue the cohort tracing policy that the hon. Gentleman has described we will encounter some difficulties. Broadly speaking, however, the concept is right. It is very difficult to think of any other concept that is underpinned by science and gives a proportionate result. I am glad that the Commission's advisers have supported that approach; it is our approach. I recognise that there may be some difficulties, but in trying to stand back, I commend the approach to right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Michael Lord: I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to stick to the golden rule of slaughtering only the cattle for which there are genuine scientific reasons for doing so. There would be great anger among farmers and people in general if we were seen to be slaughtering perfectly healthy animals in large numbers simply to appease our so-called partners in Europe. There is still a fair amount of confusion on the ground about the system. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to do all that he can to ensure that his staff get things moving as quickly and efficiently as possible, and that most of all he ensures that farmers are regularly informed what is going on.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point when he says that we should do our utmost to ensure that the farming community is aware of all relevant facts and new developments—we shall certainly do our best. I recognise that very great anger could arise at any selective cull policy that did not seem to be proportionate or justified. The concept that we have introduced to trace cohorts is designed to identify the beasts that one could sensibly say are at a pronounced risk of developing BSE because there is a high likelihood that they have been fed contaminated foodstuffs. I cannot think of a better way of adopting a cull policy. I am prepared to argue in favour of a selective cull policy, and I think that many right hon. and hon. Members would support that approach were they to reflect in great detail on the scientific arguments underpinning it. I hope that my hon. Friend may feel able to do so as well.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister recall that in a debate last week I said that some abattoirs, including one in my constituency owned by Ben Elliott, were on the original list but were then, for some

mysterious reason, taken off it? The only thing that had happened in the meantime was that somebody from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had asked, "Are you a member of the federation?" I got the clear impression that Mr. Ben Elliott, not being a member of the federation, or part of some kind of freemasonry—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: A closed shop.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, a closed shop. Ben Elliott was being penalised for not being a member. Representations have been made over the weekend. Ben Elliott can slaughter about 200 cows a day, and many farmers in the area, despite the fact that they do not agree with the cull, have to get rid of their animals, so can I have an assurance that he will be back on the list so that he can help to deal with the problem?

Mr. Hogg: I believe that that is the first time that I have ever heard the hon. Gentleman refer to a closed shop in a somewhat disparaging manner. I regard that as progress.
The problem is that we must slaughter at the maximum capacity, and that means linking abattoirs to renderers. It also means that we must not have too many abattoirs at the outset, because if we did we should not be making the most effective use of the rendering capacity. For that reason, the original number of abattoirs was reduced to 20 or 21. We have it in mind substantially to increase that figure, to about 40—next week, I think. I do not know whether the new list will include the abattoir that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), is considering that point, because the hon. Gentleman raised it with her in last Thursday's debate.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is apparently confusion in some abattoirs? One in my constituency, which is on his list, is not slaughtering because the intervention board will not provide it with the necessary information. Despite having made and sent 20 or 30 telephone calls and faxes, the abattoir has had only one reply in six weeks.
Secondly, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is now impossible to send barren cows to slaughter in some parts of the country? From a humane point of view it is distressing that because of bottlenecks, some injured animals cannot be slaughtered. Will he give that situation some thought?

Mr. Hogg: We have made provision for casualties, including injured cattle, although I am afraid that I cannot comment on the particular constituency case that my hon. Friend identified. I suggest that he raises it with the Minister of State, who has day-to-day charge of such matters in the Ministry.
The real problem is that we cannot give approval to every abattoir on the original list, because that would make for inefficient use of the rendering capacity. If we went down that road we would not be able to achieve the maximum throughput that I believe is the desired objective of all right hon. and hon. Members.

Points of Order

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you examine carefully the reply to the last question answered by the Secretary of State for Social Security during Social Security questions? Having spent the weekend with NATO listening to the Secretary-General and Carl Bildt talking about the tragedy of Bosnia, and the great part that ethnic cleansing and racism played in that terrible civil war, I believe that you will agree that racism such as we heard in that answer today has no part in the House or in our great democracy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I am sure that if Madam Speaker had heard anything that was out of order she would immediately have addressed the matter. Nevertheless, I shall ensure that the hon. Lady's point is brought to her attention.

Mr. Denis MacShane: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a new point of order?

Mr. MacShane: On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that, as one of the distinguished sportsmen in the House, you will have been outraged by today's report in the Daily Mirror about the treatment of Sir Alf Ramsey, who has not been invited to the England v. Switzerland game that will open the European championships—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's compliment; indeed, I played tennis this morning. Leaving that aside, I do not think that football managership has anything to do with Madam Speaker.

BILL PRESENTED

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2)

Mr. Paul Flynn, supported by Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. David Winnick, Ms Diane Abbott and Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, presented a Bill to impose national spending limits on political parties at parliamentary general elections: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 139.]

Licensing Act 1964 (Amendment)

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove the power of the relevant court to award costs in respect of a decision by licensing justices to grant a justices' licence, in cases where the unsuccessful objector is a properly constituted residents association.
The purpose of my Bill is to remove from courts the power to levy costs against those representing residents associations in opposing the award of justices' licences. Knowing the fate of most ten-minute Bills, I am especially glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), has come to hear the presentation of my Bill, and I hope that he will listen to some of my arguments and consider whether something can be done to alleviate the problem encountered by some of my constituents.
I preface my remarks by saying that although the horrifying story that I am about to tell happened in Harrow, it could have happened anywhere—and that as a result of what happened in Harrow, it could now happen in anyone's constituency.
The background to the problem is the purchase of a British Rail sports ground at Headstone lane, in my constituency, by an organisation now known as Broadfield sports and social club. That is a cosy-sounding name that suggests people who want to do things for the local community and for people who play sport. But that is not the view of the local community, and it is not mine either.
We must take into account the fact that the organisation consists of people who operate under assumed names, and who disguised their sources of finance and concealed their objectives, as well as threatening local residents. They are an unsavoury bunch, and in my judgment, although regrettably not in the judgment of the Harrow licensing magistrates, they are unsuitable people to be running a club. Residents had every reason to question the application for a local licence. Local people were worried, and continue to be worried. I remind the House that the applicants lied about their ownership and obscured their intentions.
In the Harrow magistrates court a retired man, Frank Hayward, represented the Headstone residents association—a respected local residents association which I believe is the oldest in the borough—and two other families also represented local feeling. The applicants were represented by an array of expensive advisers, including a barrister. Of course, they were entitled to be so represented.
The licence was granted. I do not agree with that decision, but that was the judgment. Of course, the magistrates are entitled to make a judgment on the issues as they see them. The magistrates accepted the fact that the residents had put forward a bona fide case, yet the residents finished up with a bill totalling £1,000 in costs. The applicants wanted £5,000 in costs, and £500 was awarded against Mr. Hayward, £250 against Mr. Warburton and £250 against Mr. Way
When I have spoken to magistrates from other areas no one has been able to recall another case in which that has happened. Indeed, the other magistrates to whom I spoke


were stunned that such a thing should have happened. In my judgment, the ramifications are serious. Because of what I regard as an irresponsible act on the part of Harrow magistrates, no residents association can now risk opposing a licence application. They have made this a high-risk activity.
Local residents received what I regard as threatening letters the night before the hearing from the Broadfield sports and social club, which said that the club would be applying for costs. I met a delegation from all the residents associations in Harrow. They want the matter to be sorted out, and they also want people in other parts of the country to know what a serious position they may be put in.
My Bill aims to protect community representatives when speaking for local people. It will remove the right of courts to levy costs against those representatives, and require courts to keep a list of residents associations that are properly constituted. That is not a big imposition. Councils do this already, as I know from my experience on a council. We do not want to protect a bunch of cronies or a few cranks who get together to oppose a proper licence application, but properly constituted residents associations who represent local people should be protected. Residents associations have a right to represent people, and people in turn have a right to have their views put for them against applicants, however expensively represented they may be, who may threaten local people.
The Bill is simple and direct, and it will not be a burden on legitimate licensees or anyone else in the legitimate trade, including the brewers. But it will give people in every community the right to be heard. I believe that they demand and need that right. The actions of Harrow magistrates court show that something must be done to protect people who exercise their rights.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. Michael Brown, Sir Sidney Chapman, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Clifford Forsythe, Miss Kate Hoey and Mr. Eric Pickles.

LICENSING ACT 1964 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Robert G. Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to remove the power of the relevant court to award costs in respect of a decision by licensing justices to grant a justices' licence, in cases where the unsuccessful objector is a properly constituted residents association: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

Orders of the Day — Defamation Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a law reform Bill that has a slightly unusual history and derivation. There have been not one but three consultation exercises in England and Wales, and additional consultation in Scotland and Northern Ireland, that led to the Bill being introduced in another place. The House will be aware that it was while it was in the other place that an addition was made that has a special significance for Members of the House. Although that addition appears towards the end of the Bill, I shall—with hon. Members' leave—explain the provision separately, before turning to the more general law reform provisions in the Bill.
Clause 14 would allow an hon. Member or any other person whose conduct in relation to parliamentary proceedings is an issue in an action for defamation to waive protection, such as that given by the Bill of Rights so as to enable evidence to be given and findings to be made in court about his conduct in Parliament. At the same time, the clause preserves the essential protection afforded by the Bill of Rights to Members of both Houses and other persons, such as witnesses before Select Committees, from any legal liability for what they may have said or done during proceedings in Parliament. That is the historic basis of free speech in Parliament, which must be preserved.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Evans: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, I shall complete this passage. The House will want to know exactly what the Government's position is.
The clause also provides that a waiver by one person will not affect the protection afforded to any other person who does not choose to waive it.

Mr. Carlile: Why do the Government appear to be in favour of granting the right to waiver to an individual Member of Parliament? Why do they not give that right to the Privileges Committee, which could then consider the issue and—if it thinks appropriate and while retaining the privileges of the House—give permission to the individual hon. Member to waive protection?

Mr. Evans: I want to continue with my speech, because it would be helpful if I outlined the Government's position in relation to the clause.
The matter has arisen following the libel case brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) against The Guardian. The case was stayed on the grounds that it could not be tried properly without hearing evidence about my hon. Friend's conduct in Parliament— the subject of the allegations against him—and that evidence could not be heard because of the prohibition in


the Bill of Rights on the questioning or impeaching by the courts of proceedings in Parliament. At about the same time, an action brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) was similarly stayed.
If this clause were enacted, any hon. Member who wished to would be able to waive his or her protection for the purposes of the defamation proceedings. The defendants would be able to call evidence to justify their published allegations and the issue between them and the hon. Member could be tried by the court.
This is a Government Bill, but not a Government clause. It was introduced for debate by one of the Law Lords, Lord Hoffmann. The Government recognise that the problem raised by my hon. Friends' cases is a real one, but as far as the solution proposed by the clause is concerned, the Government are neutral. We regard this as a matter for Parliament, rather than the Government, to decide, since it raises important questions touching on the Bill of Rights and the privileges of the House.
The concern of Ministers is that this issue should be properly ventilated in debate. I hope that hon. Members will find an opportunity to study the proceedings on Third Reading in another place, when the case for and against the clause was fully argued. I look forward to hearing the views of hon. Members as the Bill proceeds through its later stages.

Sir Patrick Cormack: As this is an extremely important matter and as there is a variety of business before the House today, is it my hon. Friend's intention that the matter should form the subject of a special debate on Report on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Evans: I anticipate that the clause will be dealt with at that point.

Mr. John Morris: The Minister said, properly, that the Government are neutral, and that was the view of the Lord Chancellor in another place. What would be the attitude of the Government to a proposal that the matter should go to a Select Committee of both Houses?

Mr. Evans: The issue was the subject of a full debate in another place. I have studied the debate, and I was present for a part of it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that there was a full debate in the other place, during which clear arguments for both sides were made. In those circumstances, the means of disposing of the matter that I outlined to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) would seem to be the appropriate way of proceeding.
I turn now to the other provisions of the Bill. I hope that all hon. Members received copies of the draft Bill.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not want to detain the House on Second Reading, but I want to get this point absolutely clear. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that whatever view one takes, this issue goes right to the heart of the privilege of Members of Parliament. It is terribly important that the debate on the matter is not time-constrained. I do not wish to detain the House by making a five-minute speech today—I am sure that other

hon. Members feel the same way—but I hope that the usual channels can guarantee time for a full debate on this issue on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Evans: I shall take into account my hon. Friend's observations, but that is a matter for the usual channels to resolve. I am sure that his views will be taken into consideration.
On the other provisions, I hope that all hon. Members received copies of the draft Bill, which were sent to them during our consultation exercise last summer.

Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting, but this matter arises from what was just said about an extremely important issue—one about which many of us are greatly concerned. Is it correct that no Minister can guarantee a debate on any particular issue on Report as that is a matter for Madam Speaker? As we go through what is bound to be a short debate because we are time-constrained, perhaps the Minister or the Leader of the House can help us to understand how we can be guaranteed a debate on the Floor of the House on a matter that goes to the root of parliamentary accountability.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The more points of order there are, the longer we will take to debate the issue. The Chair has ears, as well as the usual channels.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: The consultation exercise undertaken last summer was a relatively new pattern of consultation, in which we published a complete draft Bill, with brief explanatory notes, inviting views on the detailed drafting, structure and presentation of legislation to implement important reforms to defamation law and procedure, which the Government had already announced. That consultation proved immensely valuable and we were able to make a number of useful modifications and improvements when preparing the Bill for introduction.
Full notes on clauses are available for any hon. Members who wants to examine the provisions in greater detail. Fuller explanations of the current law and the need for reform may be found in the published consultation documents. The Bill brings together defamation reform proposals from several separate sources. A substantial part of the Bill implements recommendations made by the working group set up under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Neill, in response to the Lord Chancellor's invitation to the Supreme Court procedure committee to examine the rules and practice for pleadings in defamation cases and to propose reforms.
We published the working group's report on "Practice and Procedure in Defamation" for consultation in July 1991. We are indebted to Lord Justice Neill and his colleagues for all the work and assistance that they have given us, not only in identifying the problems and proposing solutions in their report, but during the process of working the proposals up into a legislative form for implementation. Lord Hoffmann also played a major role at the very earliest stage, as he suggested to the Lord Chancellor that a special regime should be set up for the summary hearing of defamation claims. That is to be found in clauses 8 to 11 of the Bill. I should like to express my gratitude for those valuable contributions and I am sure that hon. Members would wish to join me in doing so.
The other reform proposal—in clause 1 of the Bill— is the result of the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper, "The Defence of Innocent Dissemination", which was published in July 1990. While the Lord Chancellor's review of defamation law began as a review of the law in England and Wales, many of the changes introduced by the Bill will apply in Scotland as well, as although there are some differences in both the substantive law and the procedures, the systems are broadly similar. The reforms will also apply to Northern Ireland.
I propose to explain the Bill's provisions in fairly broad terms. Clause 1 contains a new statutory defence, which will supersede the common law defence of innocent dissemination. That defence has always been subject to some uncertainty, particularly as to who could rely on it, and those uncertainties have inevitably increased as modern technology has provided us with entirely new concepts in communication.
The statutory defence concentrates on the concept of responsibility for publication. It will not be available to authors, editors or publishers—in the commercial sense— of defamatory material, but it will be available to others whose work may in some way have contributed to the publication of defamatory material that someone else has chosen to publish, unless they knowingly took part in producing a defamatory publication, or had reason to believe that they were doing so.
Clauses 2 to 4 also provide a new defence to replace an existing defence that does not fulfil the purpose for which it was created. There is already a statutory defence of unintentional defamation, which is available when amends have been promptly offered, but it is cumbersome and has been little used. Lord Justice Neill's working group recommended that it should be replaced by a new defence, which would be more streamlined and would be available only to a defendant who was willing to pay compensation assessed by a judge as well as publishing an appropriate correction and apology.
That is the foundation of clauses 2 to 4, which have been substantially modified since we published the draft Bill for consultation last year. That has been done to provide a replacement for section 4 of the Defamation Act 1952, which will enable a large number of cases to be resolved quickly and cheaply—and, it is hoped, amicably—instead of developing into full-scale litigation.

Mr. Clive Soley: Can the Minister clarify whether he sees clauses 2 to 4 as an alternative way of dealing with inaccurate reports about an individual in newspapers, if the paper offers to correct the statement that has been made, rather than going for a full libel case?

Mr. Evans: I anticipate that that may be the case in appropriate circumstances, but if the hon. Gentleman examines clause 4(3), he will find that there are circumstances in which that defence would not be available. That is particularly so when the offer is made in circumstances in which, at the time that the statement was complained of, it was "false and defamatory" of a party, or
referred to the aggrieved party or was likely to be understood as referring to him".
Clause 4(3) limits the operation of clauses 2 to 4 and so it does not have the more general application to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is certainly a useful addition to the Bill. The more general application can be found in clauses 8 to 11, which I will deal with later.
We have introduced the concept of a "qualified" offer, which allows the offerer to specify the defamatory meaning that he accepts that his statement conveyed, so that he will not find himself committed to making amends in respect of some wholly different and more defamatory meaning, the possibility of which he may not even have contemplated when making the offer.
Clauses 5 and 6 reduce the limitation period, both in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, in actions for libel or slander and for malicious falsehood. One year is the time within which most actions are begun; they need to be, if the proceedings are to minimise damage to the plaintiff's reputation. The court will have a discretion to disapply the strict limitation period in favour of a plaintiff who had a good reason not to proceed within it. In exercising that discretion, the court will balance the prejudice that the defendant would suffer if it did proceed against the prejudice that the plaintiff would suffer if it did not.
Clause 7 is part of a minor reform, designed to eradicate delaying tactics by parties going through the unnecessary extra stage of applying for rulings as to meanings that statements are "arguably" capable of bearing.
As I told the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), clauses 8 to 11 bring defamation proceedings into line with most other civil proceedings in providing powers of summary disposal. The clauses introduce a new fast-track procedure, which will provide a prompt and inexpensive remedy in less serious defamation cases.
Those clauses give judges new powers, enabling them to consider the strength of the claim and the defences raised and to dispose of the claim summarily in favour of either party.The summary relief that the judge will have power to grant includes damages up to £10,000, a declaration that the statement was false and defamatory and an order requiring the defendant to publish a correction and apology, which may take the form of an approved summary of the judgment.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Evans: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a little progress as the debate is fairly time-constrained.
Clauses 8 to 11 also provide a substructure for the special rules that will be needed in the context of summary disposal.

Mr. Ashton: I am not a lawyer so the Minister may be able to correct me, but what is to deter a newspaper from running up costs of much more than £10,000 so that the complainant has to settle at an early stage or drop the case? The cost factor is the deterrent.

Mr. Evans: It is and one reason why the fast-track procedure should be supported is that it presents an alternative to one party—the monied party—dragging out proceedings and increasing the level of costs, thus depriving people of their legitimate rights. It was suggested in another place that £10,000 was inadequate and that it should, perhaps, be £20,000 or something of that nature.
My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor agreed to examine any specific proposals for a more appropriate sum and what the arguments might be. He has an open mind on that. To date, no such representations have been made although the issue has been raised in debate. I give the same assurance that we would be prepared to examine arguments for a different figure.
Clause 12 changes the rule that in an action for libel or slander in which the question whether a person committed a criminal offence is relevant to an issue arising in the action, proof of his conviction is conclusive evidence that he committed the offence. Plaintiffs in defamation proceedings will no longer enjoy the artificial advantage of the lightness of someone else's conviction being unchallengeable.
Clause 13 prevents the plaintiff from recovering damages for injury to his reputation beyond those to which he would be entitled if everything likely to affect his reputation were public knowledge. The defendant will now be allowed to lead on and to rely on evidence of conduct which, if known, would affect the plaintiff's reputation. The clause is designed to prevent injustice. It is clearly wrong, for reasons explained with great expertise in the report of Lord Justice Neill's working group, that the court should be forced to assume—and sometimes appear to provide a confirmatory reference— in assessing compensation for damage to a reputation, that a wholly unblemished reputation is deserved, even where there may be available evidence to demonstrate the contrary. That cannot be right. There is, of course, a need to restrict the evidence on which the defendant is able to rely in mitigation to evidence that is relevant to that aspect of the plaintiff's reputation—for instance, his business probity or conduct towards his family—to which the defamatory statement relates.
Clauses 15 and 16, with schedule 1, bring up to date existing statutory privileges. The new privilege under clause 16 for certain reports of legislative, judicial and other public proceedings will apply to publications in general, not only to newspapers and periodicals, and will extend to a wider category of reports—in particular, recognising the need to give reports of proceedings of European institutions protection equivalent to that already given to those in this country. Clauses 17 to 21 contain general supplementary provisions.
The Bill is a useful measure of law reform and has been the subject of widespread consultation. It simplifies a complex area of law and procedure and fits well with current developments in the conduct of civil litigation generally. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Paul Boateng: The law of libel is a complex and sometimes arcane area in which often only the wealthy, the brave or the foolhardy dare to tread. Looking around the Chamber, I fancy that we shall hear from some hon. Members who have had experience in one or more of those categories. The law of libel presents the nation with an arena for theatre as much as anything else, but it has ramifications for our national life that go beyond the chuckles, snide remarks and sneers that too often accompany libel actions, and that themselves reflect the harm and sense of hurt involved in such actions.
The law of libel seeks to reconcile the conflicting concerns of the right to know, the right to privacy and the right to free expression. It is not easy to balance those rights in a free society. It is a pity that the Bill, broadly welcome though it is, is not part of a wider package that would enable us to address concerns about freedom of information as well as those raised in the past by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about a right to reply.
The Bill continues to leave on the shelf the issue of how we can make it possible for people of little or no means to defend their reputations. One of the less satisfactory elements of our law is the fact that the reputations of most ordinary people count for little as far as the law is concerned because they will never have the means with which to defend them. That is one of the great pities of our system of civil justice, but sometimes it can be one of the great scandals. We cannot address that problem at present through the legal aid fund and I do not suggest that that would be an appropriate way of addressing it.
The Bill attempts to establish a new fast-track summary procedure, which is welcome as far as it goes. For most people, even that will be inaccessible because they will not be able to afford the large lawyers' fees that inevitably follow such actions. There is probably no more lucrative area of practice. It is not a field, in my 20 years as a solicitor and a barrister, in which I have had the opportunity to graze but there are some hon. and learned Conservative Members with much experience in it. They will no doubt share with the House the problems of ordinary people of limited means—in so far as they are aware of them—in gaining access to the law of libel. The Bill does nothing to address the concerns of such people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) mentioned some of those concerns when he noted that the cost of going to law was a deterrent for most people. The Bill will address that issue—I welcome this—in several ways; for example, by introducing a power for judges that will enable them to dispose through a summary procedure and to grant damages of up to £10,000. It is to be hoped that that will focus the minds of the parties concerned and reduce costs. There is a question mark over that, which we shall no doubt want to explore in Committee. There is a danger that the summary procedure will become yet another procedural staging post and not necessarily provide the relief that it was intended to provide. It is important to ensure that that is not allowed to happen as the rules of practice and precedent develop.
The Bill is welcome to that extent. It is also welcome— although it may not go far enough—in its attempt to meet the challenges presented in the law of libel by developing technology. Internet communications open up a new area of potential libel. They open up new vistas of opportunity for those who pay no heed to the reputations of others, and who will seek the anonymity of technology to disseminate defamatory material.
The Bill considers the responsibilities of operators of Internet communications. It seeks to protect them against liability for defamation resulting from innocent dissemination of material. That is all well and good, as far as it goes. The Bill does not help, however, in that it does not say how the Internet is effectively to be policed to tackle the dissemination of defamatory material. It does not say how defamatory material, once identified, might easily and without undue cost be removed.
I look at the Minister, and envisage him surfing the Internet. These days, more and more of us, in our little offices, have an opportunity to surf the Internet—indeed, it is the only opportunity for surfing that we get, and we do not even have to adopt a specific mode of dress for that experience. Policing the Internet and ensuring that defamatory material is removed remain significant problems. Some time, it will be necessary for the House to legislate more comprehensively on that than it has done.
We shall wish to explore several aspects of the Bill in more detail in Committee. We are worried about the implications of reducing the limitation periods for actions for libel, slander and malicious falsehood from three years to one. That is a significant problem. Let us take an example. It may be difficult for a police officer who seeks to address defamation as it may affect him in the course of his duties, to bring an action within one year. Before the way is clear to take an action, he is likely to have to undergo the police complaints procedure and the internal disciplinary procedure. What is to happen to him?
What is to happen to people who are obliged to spend a considerable amount of time getting together the money to launch an action? That is related to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. Some people need to obtain the money from a friend or through a public appeal. Have the Government sufficiently taken that into account in reducing the period as they do? Opposition Members have doubts about that.
It is not clear why in one jurisdiction—Scotland—it should be possible to bring an action within three years yet in another—England and Wales—the time should be restricted to one. I do not suggest for a moment that in Scotland the limitation period should be reduced from three years to one, because I know that the Law Society of Scotland strongly opposes that. Its members have good reason for opposing it, as have Opposition Members.
We shall ask some questions about another aspect of the Bill, which the Minister mentioned—the issue of how far it is proper to go into the background of a plaintiff in libel proceedings for the purposes of defending the claim and mitigating the damages, known as "the rule in Scott v. Sampson". Others may have different views on this, and I look forward to hearing the contributions of hon. and learned Members on that subject, but concern has been expressed by practitioners that the Bill might be a muckraker's charter. It would benefit certain newspaper defendants to undertake an in-depth investigation into the plaintiffs private life in an endeavour to unearth something to his discredit that they can then expose in open court as a way of diminishing the plaintiff—

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: And frightening them off.

Mr. Boateng: —or, as the hon. Lady says, frightening them off. That is an important point, which we wish to explore in Committee.
I shall now discuss an aspect that turns an otherwise relatively uncontroversial and broadly welcome Bill into something that rightly provokes controversy and concern—the introduction, almost by a side-wind, on Third Reading in the other place, by Lord Justice Hoffmann of an amendment that goes to the heart of the privileges of the House.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I may be mistaken, but it was not introduced on Third Reading in the Lords; it was

introduced in Committee. It was debated at that stage. It was then debated again on Report and, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, a decision was postponed until Third Reading to give even more peers who wished to participate in the debate full notice and thereby to give the maximum opportunity for Members of the other House to debate the issue thoroughly—which they did.

Mr. Boateng: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and of course he does have a real interest in the clause—

Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to raise this, but would it not have been better, indeed proper, for the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) to have declared his interest?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members know that it is not for the Chair to determine which hon. Members should raise which interests. That rests entirely with hon. Members, and they must live with their decisions.

Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend because the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) does have an interest, and he will of course want the House to know that. I understand his interests, and I mean him no disrespect by pointing that out, save to—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in believing that if an issue affects all Members of the House equally, all of us have an interest that is not registrable?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That seems painfully obvious.

Mr. Boateng: "Painfully" is perhaps the operative word. The intervention by the hon. Member for Tatton reflects his real interest in this subject. The turnout for the debate on Third Reading in the other place made it quite clear that the hon. Gentleman's interest has excited the interest of others. Some of those who took part do not usually get so interested in innocuous law reform measures.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Would it not be more correct to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) has a predicament, not an interest in the sense that we usually use the word in this Chamber? I make no comment one way or the other on that predicament.

Mr. Boateng: As usual, the hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the point. It was precisely the hon. Gentleman's predicament that led to this provision. Having latched on to that helpful word, let us further explore the hon. Gentleman's predicament and whether the predicament of one hon. Member is a proper reason to revisit such a fundamental element of our constitution.
Parliamentary privilege and any amendment to article 9 of the Bill of Rights are far too important matters to be changed for the sake of one hon. Gentleman's predicament. The issue should of course be examined with the utmost care and debated in depth, but I am worried about the Government's proposal for dealing with the issue.
A debate on Report is always time-limited. Right hon. and hon. Members may want to debate other matters on Report. It seems to us important to learn the views and listen to the wisdom of others on the subject—

Mr. Rupert Allason: I declare the same predicament as the one already mentioned by the Minister. This is not just a question of the predicament of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). If any Member of the House brings an action for defamation against a newspaper, he will discover that the newspapers have found a useful loophole under article 9 of the Bill of Rights. As a result, 652 people have been disadvantaged in a way that has nothing to do with what is said in the House or with our proceedings. By dint of the fact that they are Members of the House, they have been disadvantaged vis-a-vis all the other citizens in the country. The attempt here is to close the loophole in question.

Mr. Boateng: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I think Mr. Justice Owen told him: he must take the good with the ill. Hon. Members enjoy great privileges and there is a price to be paid for them. Those privileges are not ours; they belong to the House. First and foremost they are for the benefit of our constituents, not us. We must therefore think very carefully before we do anything to undermine them.
Parliamentary privilege has stood the test of time these 300 years. This is the first time in 300 years that the predicament has arisen in quite that way. We would be most unwise to discard the protection that the House has been afforded for 300 years merely because of the predicament of one, two or even three Members of this House—

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Even me.

Mr. Boateng: We all recognise that the privileges attached to membership of the House are attached to us all. To that extent, the plight of one may be the plight of all. We must also recognise our overriding responsibility to those who send us here and who, through the ballot box, confer on us and on the House the privileges of speech that enable us to fulfil our role in this place.
The point was put succinctly in a report of the Privileges Committee when it examined the position of the late and right hon. Member for Streatham in the early days of the second world war. He was threatened with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act 1911 simply for asking a question about the state of London's anti-aircraft defences. The Committee's report, afterwards endorsed by this House, stated:
The privilege of freedom of speech enjoyed by Members of Parliament is in truth the privilege of their constituents. It is secured to Members not for their personal benefit but to enable them to discharge the functions of their office without fear of prosecution, civil or criminal.
That, surely, is the point.
We must not alter the basis of privilege without careful investigation. That is why Labour proposes that, following Second Reading, the Bill be committed to a Committee

of both Houses so that it may be properly examined and so that the constitutional issues that clause 14 throws up can be properly explored.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is not the weakness of that suggestion to be found in the fact that, if that sort of debate took place, it would preclude the full and proper debate on the Floor of the House which is essential—there having been a similar debate in another place?

Mr. Boateng: We have been advised that a Joint Committee of both Houses, having taken evidence and debated the matter, would report back to both Houses and that a full debate, informed by the evidence taken and any conclusions reached, might then take place.
That is the attraction of the Opposition's proposal. We make it because we are all too conscious of what the implications would be were clause 14 to pass into law. We are concerned about the overthrow of a long-established protection of parliamentary privilege and of right hon. and hon. Members provided by article 9 of the Bill of Rights and about the erosion of that cherished constitutional principle.
We are also concerned about a possible arbitrariness. A potential litigant would not know if, when and to what extent a Member of Parliament involved in litigation would waive parliamentary privilege. That, in turn, could lead to uncertainty in the law and unfairness. [Interruption.] One bears in mind the predicament of the hon. Member for Tatton, who no doubt will make his own speech in due course. However, such matters are not best debated by way of sedentary muttering.
We have to consider whether the House can view with any equanimity the proposal that the definition of the term "proceedings" should be the subject of judicial interpretation. I see a puzzled expression on the face of the hon. Member for Tatton. Perhaps he should consider the implications of clause 14.
I hesitate to go into too great detail, bearing in mind that we are debating the Bill on Second Reading, but we have to consider what a judge will be asked to do. A judge will be asked to consider whether a particular aspect of the work of the House falls within the definition of "proceedings". That must involve a degree of scrutiny and interpretation by the judiciary of the rights, privileges and functions of the House and that raises serious concerns, not least at a time of increasing judicial intervention. We want those matters to be explored in detail.
The Minister has explained to us that the matter can be explored on the Floor of the House on Report. That is all well and good as far as the House is concerned, but what about the views of the various Commonwealth Parliaments that also rely on the Bill of Rights and that look to article 9 for protection? How are they to be consulted? Have they been consulted? Perhaps they ought to be consulted. After all, the Prebble v. Television New Zealand case and the Privy Counsel ruling therein, which is at the heart of the predicament of the hon. Member for Tatton, arose from a case in a Commonwealth jurisdiction. We should also consider the other Commonwealth jurisdictions. Any change in United Kingdom privilege law is likely to have reverberations across the Commonwealth, the directness of the impact varying according to local constitutional arrangements.
The Bill raises all those concerns that touch the rights and privileges of each and every hon. Member, not least those who may not choose to lift the veil when another


does in the course of proceedings—a problem recognised by Lord Hoffmann when he moved clause 14 on Third Reading in the other place.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Has the hon. Gentleman observed that Lord Hoffmann called for a vote on the clause, but did not vote for it?

Mr. Boateng: That may be a matter of some significance. When one reflects on the high regard in which the noble and learned Lord is held by members of our profession and his wisdom and knowledge of the law, the fact that he did not vote may well tell us something. There is all the more reason for us to take great care before proceeding down the route that clause 14 suggests.
The Minister said that it is not a Government measure, but one contained within a Government Bill. That would have carried a little more conviction had the Lord Chancellor not expressed himself in such clear and unambiguous terms in support of clause 14; nevertheless one hears what the Minister says. It is all the more reason for the Government to make time for the issue to be considered in a Joint Committee—rather than having it dealt with on Report without sufficient time being guaranteed—and to give the motion a fair wind.
The Bill is significant and important. We broadly welcome its main thrust, but one aspect causes the Opposition great concern. We shall return to it repeatedly to make sure that the privileges of the House and its Members—which are not ours, but are held in trust for our constituents—are properly represented.

Mr. David Ashby: I was rather disappointed, but not surprised, to hear an establishment speech from the Minister when we have the opportunity of a radical change in the defamation law. I was surprised, however, to hear an establishment speech from the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), and I expect one in due course from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). They are all part of the establishment. I am not.
I have no interest to declare except my experience of one of the more deleterious libel cases. I had the temerity to challenge a national newspaper. I was in a fairly unique position. As a lawyer at the criminal Bar, I had no experience of civil proceedings, and I came to the libel action as an informed layman, and no more than that. I hope that my experience will help the House.
The fact of being defamed was undoubtedly the worst experience of my life, although some say that birth is pretty traumatic. The effect of the article and the newspaper coverage left me with a physical shock that was not dissimilar to that of a serious road accident. Sleep left me, and I found myself bursting into tears for no reason. I suffered acute depression, severe ill health, and mental and physical exhaustion. Many other aspects of my personal and private life have been affected and are well documented by the press, who never leave me alone.
I have no doubt that the libel laws need urgent and radical reform. Let us put the matter in context. For years, hon. Members and the public have been amazed by the antics of the press. Parliament has wrung its hands in anguish, but it has lacked the courage to deal with the problem. Press commissions, press complaints

commissions, inquiries such as Calcutt, and drinks in the last chance saloon with Ministers have ended in admissions from one and all that they are too frightened to do anything.
Basically, the problems relate to press standards. Newspaper standards are at a very low ebb. Journalists and editors appear to lack professional integrity, while at the same time the newspaper industry is being concentrated in the hands of a few. The battle is on, with a ruthless, no-holds-barred circulation war, breaches of privacy and salacious intrusions into private lives. Every ethical standard has been sacrificed to the bigger headline that will sell more newspapers.
Newspapers assume a ruthless arrogance: claiming the right to know and holding themselves up as defenders of the public, when they simply want more information so that they can print more lurid stories and sell more copies. The first point that the House must understand is that newspapers do not exist to serve some public good: they exist to make a profit—and sensational and libellous stories make money for the newspaper proprietors. The libel laws must address that point: libel victims and the courts have a right to know how much money the newspapers are making from their libellous activities.
Secondly, the libel laws are the only way of controlling what the press print and, ultimately, press quality. I cannot over-emphasise that point, and I draw it to the attention of all those who think that the Bill is unimportant.
We all want to see a responsible and a courageous press which provides news and comment about important and relevant matters. We do not want to know about Elton John's fictitious diet or about an actor's behaviour 40 years ago. The editor has responsibility and control over a newspaper's contents—whether the stories are written by journalists or by freelance reporters. If we are to improve the quality of our newspapers, we must enshrine that point firmly in our defamation law.
Some people may be surprised to learn that that responsibility is not spelled out in law. The editors must have a vicarious liability for all that is printed in their newspapers—they must be held accountable. Furthermore, if a newspaper wishes to defame, the editor should give evidence in court to explain why he thought it was right to allow that defamation. Editors allow defamation freely because they seldom have to explain themselves: they hide behind a right to silence, while people's reputations are destroyed. When an editor is not called to explain himself, it should be presumed, first, that the article is libellous; and, secondly, that there is no defence for the libel.
In my case, Times Newspapers Ltd. sheltered behind the fact that The Sunday Times editor, Andrew Neill, was sunning himself in Bermuda and did not know about the lying story that was written. The effect was disastrous for me, because I could not put before the jury the sheer malice that was displayed by The Sunday Times. If editors were held accountable for newspaper content, press behaviour would improve at one stroke. Editors would question journalists about their actions and their sources, because they might have to go into the witness box and explain an article. At one stroke, editors would become more responsible.
The Bill arises from the Neill report. My overwhelming impression of the libel courts in the High Court of Justice is that they are there to look after the newspapers.
The newspapers can do little wrong. At every interlocutory point, the newspapers are granted extensions of time, orders to give further information, and opportunities to waste the poor victims' time and money. Newspapers have the time and the money on their side, and they know how to use it to their advantage. Even in the Court of Appeal, the judges back the wealthy newspapers that have seriously libelled a victim, and invariably reduce damages. I shall return to the question of wealthy newspapers and damages in a moment.
Therefore, it is no surprise that, when a judge heads a committee on defamation, he totally ignores the victims— as the Neill committee did—and takes evidence only from the newspapers. Solicitors who represent victims of libel—they did not even know of the committee's existence—and the victims were ignored. The only people asked to submit evidence were the gang of in-house solicitors who represent the newspapers. What a committee report.
The result is a report that is a newspapers' charter, and a Defamation Bill that will have journalists laughing with glee in the public houses of Fleet street. At every turn, the Bill makes it harder for the victim and easier for newspapers to defame. God knows it is hard enough for the poor sod whose life is ruined.
I return to the question of newspaper wealth. A libel action is a serious and an expensive business for the victim—I use the word "victim" every time—which can ruin him financially. Newspapers often employ the tactic of prolonging the case and increasing the costs, so that the victim runs out of money.
Newspapers indulge in defamation only to make money. They make vast sums out of the reports of proceedings, and I believe that they should pay for that indulgence. For a few months, I read every part of every national and regional newspaper, and I can report that the press are ruining many lives up and down the country. The victims have no redress, because they cannot afford to sue.
We must do something about that problem. I believe that a new legal aid fund, financed by a levy on the newspapers, should be established specifically to deal with defamation. If the newspapers want to defame, they should finance the consequences. They are getting away with it at the moment, and they must not continue to do so.
It is not a level playing field, for two reasons. First, newspapers can offset the damages and the costs against their vast profits, but the victims cannot. That must be stopped. Secondly, juries understand the severity of the effects of libel on the victim better than appeal judges. The only language that the newspapers understand is money. Juries should be free to assess the damages. Those damages should remain, and should be changed by the Court of Appeal only in the most exceptional circumstances. That would make newspapers better and more responsible—although they would squeal about it.
The third major change required is to the defences open to newspapers. Clause 13 is quite outrageous: it allows newspapers to write a completely fictitious story and then dredge through a victim's life from beginning to end, throwing as much mud as possible in the hope that it will stick and justify their defamation. The House rejected that

measure in the past as unfair, unjust and unworthy. Only a libel judge would think of resurrecting it for the benefit of the press.
In my case, the press ruthlessly resorted to every dirty trick in the book to justify the story. I suffered burglary, theft, impersonation and computer hacking. No bank accounts are safe—Mr. Leppard of The Sunday Times boasts that he hacks into every one of our accounts. He does it freely. In my case, there was a note from an editor saying, "Please do not spend too much on hacking into the accounts" to find out how much we owned and how much we earned. That is what they do. I believe that that conduct is not right, that it should not be allowed, and that any evidence obtained in such a manner should not be allowed to be used in any court.
It is simply no good complaining. In my case, the trial judge said that I could take my complaints to the Press Complaints Commission. This was a full-blooded defamation action, and I was the victim. The PCC is a toothless watchdog.
Being defamed is not a game, as the courts, lawyers and newspapers seem to think it is. What is at stake is a person's integrity and reputation. It is absolutely incredible that, if I were in a criminal court, allegations would have to be proved to a standard so that the jury was sure, whereas, in a libel action, I can be absolutely destroyed—as I have been—on the balance of probabilities.
The standard of proof must be changed, and there should be no justification for printing a pack of lies. The burden of proving justification should always lie on the person making the allegations, and the victim should never have to reply to that allegation if he does not wish to.
I have raised points to which we should be addressing ourselves if we are to try to get the law of defamation right. Let us consider the Bill. Clause 1 provides for responsibility for publication. I cannot understand why it is unreasonable that those who broadcast, invariably for commercial gain, should not take responsibility for what is broadcast, because the victim will otherwise be left without any effective redress.
Clauses 2 to 4 deal with making amends. They are a means by which publishers without a leg to stand on can avoid damages being assessed by a jury. As the law currently stands, a publisher can make a qualified offer of amends in respect of one or more defamatory meanings. So, under this section, a publisher can offer to apologise, make a correction and pay damages in relation to one allegation, but seek to justify the rest of the article. The victim, who may reject the offer, may end up losing even the damages to which he was entitled. In this respect, the present law is good enough.
We have already dealt with the limitation period. Why should defamation laws be unique in having a one-year limitation period? Why should it not be three years? It was recently decreased from six years to three years. Why should we not have a three-year limitation period, as in other proceedings?
The summary disposal of a claim simply adds to the victim's burden. The only effect of this section is to create a ceiling of £10,000 for the victim. That is the only effect, because, if the victim wishes to go down the road of summary disposal and the judge finds that there is a realistic prospect of success—as the judge invariably does—for the newspapers, which have masses of money


to spend on the most expensive counsel, the poor victim has wasted money, and has to bear the costs of the claim's summary disposal. There is already a swift method, and we should continue with it.
The provision on evidence of convictions worries me, because it could bring the law into disrepute. Obviously investigative journalists want to be able to argue that a conviction was wrong when a libel action is brought by, for example, police officers. So they seek to prove something according to one standard of proof in a jurisdiction in which there is another standard of proof. That brings the law into disrepute.
My speech has had to be somewhat hurried, but I have set out my misgivings about the Bill—in which Lord Justice Neill has clearly been over-impressed by the newspapers' house lawyers. No attempt has been made in the Bill to strike a balance between victims of defamatory articles and publishers. I know that publishers will either squeal about freedom of the press or ignore this speech, in the hope that the less the public know about it the better. I heard squeals earlier from the Press Gallery.
My suggestions are not about taking away press freedoms but about reducing newspapers' arrogant right— as they see it—to defame freely. My suggestions focus responsibility on editors, making them do the job properly and responsibly. My suggestions would improve integrity in journalism and in the newspapers.
Finally, my suggestions would restore a long-lost balance for the victims, who are often in humble circumstances—I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Brent, South on that point—who seem to have been forgotten by the House, and who are frequently sneered at by the newspapers. The House owes a duty to them.

Mr. John Morris: I should like to express concern, as other hon. Members have done, that the House is being asked—with minimum publicity and certainly none of the widespread consultation that the Minister was boasting about—to amend the Bill of Rights 1688, which is one of the cornerstones of our liberties. We have been told that this House was exclusively concerned with the defence of our liberties in that year, but that privilege is now, of course, enjoyed by another place.
An amendment was passed in another place—after a very short debate in Committee, and another, longer debate on Third Reading—to amend article 9. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) told us, Lord Hoffmann, the proposer, commended the amendment, but curiously did not vote for it. The Lord Chancellor was neutral on it.
I shall not relate article 9 at length because of the need to save time, but it is also our safeguard and our shield. The current problem has arisen because of the difficulty in that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) wants to go to the courts to clear his name. In so doing, he issued proceedings for libel, and The Guardian pleaded justification. As I understand it, for the court to investigate the issue would have involved an investigation of what the hon. Gentleman had done in the course of his parliamentary duties. The court held that that was contrary to article 9, and the action was stayed.
Article 9 is the guarantee of our freedom of speech, and it protects us from actions against us for libel for whatever we say in Parliament. It is our shield, and it has been our

shield for centuries. The actions of the hon. Member for Tatton would have involved throwing away the shield and using our proceedings as a spear—they would certainly have had to be used as a spear—in the course of those proceedings.
I say immediately and sincerely that I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Tatton in his efforts to clear his name. Strangely, there has never been a case in English history in which an hon. Member has sought to bring a libel action that raised the question of his parliamentary conduct.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has already referred us to the well-known case of R. v. Pebble, a decision of the Judicial Committee. The court then decided that it could not inquire into parliamentary conduct, and that, if the effect was to stifle a defence—in that case it was a television company's— that defamatory allegations were true, the hon. Member's actions would be stayed. As I understand it, that was the position as regards the hon. Member for Tatton.
As I have said, I have the greatest sympathy for the hon. Member, and I certainly would not lend my name to allowing a ministerial career to be wrecked, at least temporarily, because he is denied access to the courts to attempt to clear his name. I am concerned about what is the right way in which to accomplish such access. In my view, an amendment that was passed at Third Reading in another place, without any previous consideration or consultation, is not the way in which to do it.
We are overturning with a simple amendment 300 years of history in which the system apparently worked. The old adage,
hard cases make bad law",
has more than a grain of truth in it. Lord Simon of Glaisdale, a distinguished former Law Lord, whom some of us—few, perhaps, by now—remember fondly as a particularly able and helpful Solicitor-General in a Conservative Government, advised caution on it in another place. He believed that this was a question of the highest constitutional importance. He wanted the whole matter to go before a Select Committee of both Houses. I am respectfully supportive: Lord Simon has much greater knowledge than me. I consider it strongly desirable for the issues raised in the amendment to be considered in such a way.
In the past few days, I have consulted one of the most eminent of our constitutional lawyers, Professor Sir William Wade in Cambridge, who has advised Governments all over the world—and individuals—on constitutional law. While he is relaxed on the issue of actually amending the Bill of Rights, he recommends further study before any change is made. That is good counsel, from someone who sincerely believes that justice should be done.
Why should the matter be studied further? First, it is not the privilege of an hon. Member—or any other Member—that we are discussing; it is the privilege of Parliament—the privilege of this House. I would be happier if an amendment had been carried allowing the House, when it was thought right, to waive that privilege in a fit and proper case. Secondly, speech after speech in the debate in the other place pointed out the unfairness of Members' not being able to clear their names, while ignoring the fact that that is precisely the position of the man in the street who is attacked by a Member during a debate in the House.
That curious state of affairs was ignored by advocates of a waiver, who were more than content to bask in the shelter of privilege while continuing to claim a right to disparage those outside without putting themselves in any danger. If a Member is allowed to take up his spear and waive the privilege of the House, may not pressure be exerted in due course for us to lose our shield as well? The public will want to know, and there will be pressure from that source.
There has been considerable interest in the matter in the Commonwealth, and at least one case has been dealt with there. Some may want to follow us, because they also have the advantage of article 9. Should we not hear what they have to say, and take evidence from them?
Thirdly, there is the issue of the definition of proceedings in Parliament. That, too, has been raised in another place. The High Court in the Strand might take one view, and this High Court of Parliament might take another.
Fourthly, what if more than one Member is involved? What if one wants to waive his privilege—or the House's privilege—and the other does not? During the debate in the other place, Lord Hoffmann said that he could not think of an easy answer. "Leave it to the judges": that is what he advised. Judges are used to handling tricky situations.
With respect, I doubt very much that the judiciary who must try such cases would welcome this particular baby if it were put into their lap. Surely, if Parliament wishes to change the position, it should resolve such obvious problems rather than walking away from them.
Lord Simon also asked why the issue should be limited to defamation. What if there were fisticuffs between two Members, or—perhaps more probable—between an investigative journalist and a Member? A reputation can be won or lost in such circumstances. Lord Lester pointed out that a Member who had been defamed would be under pressure to waive our collective privilege so that he could sue.
If the amendment is carried in both Houses, let there be no doubt that cross-examination will have few limits, and could possibly cover the whole of a Member's career and his actions in Parliament, rather than being confined to the narrowness of one incident. If we want to go along that road, we should know what the difficulties are. If the Select Committee agrees to my suggestion, and the suggestion of the Opposition, may I suggest some safeguards to the Committee?
First, the matter should be decided by resolution of the House, because that is the House's privilege—I believe that it can already act in that way—rather than through the waiver of an individual Member. Secondly, a Member should be allowed to refer his case to the new Privileges Committee, to see what the problems are and examine them.
Thirdly, if that Committee agreed—I speak as one who served for many a long year on the Committee of Privileges—it could, if it wished, recommend to the House that the House waive its privilege. That would be a better way of safeguarding a specific situation that had not been considered by the whole Select Committee; we are examining it now, perhaps a little more academically.
There may be other problems. One, raised in the other place, is that the Bill of Rights preceded the Act of Union, and does not, in its present form, apply to Scotland. We should not put our hard-earned right of freedom in the House in jeopardy—the right to speak without fear or favour, knowing that what we say will not be held against us in the courts.
Having read all the debates in the other place and considered the matter as widely as I could, I advise the House that the only proper course is to refer the matter to a Select Committee for further consideration.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful to be called, and will be as brief as I can.
First, let me declare an interest—or, perhaps, a predicament—as a practitioner at the libel Bar. Let me also place on record my thanks to the Neill committee, and to Lord Justice Neill and other committee members, for their work. I am afraid that they have not received unstinting praise from some hon. Members this evening; that is a pity, because they deserve it. Irrespective of whether we agree with their conclusions, their work should be recognised and they should not be abused in the House.
I know that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and I shall therefore confine my remarks to as brief a compass as possible. I am aware that other hon. Members who have found themselves in predicaments wish to speak. I accept that the new defence under clause 1 is worth having, and that we should allow it to work its way through the law of defamation to see whether it proves useful—I think that it will—but I should like to refer briefly to some other clauses, explaining why I agree with some and am concerned by others. I do not expect an answer to some—indeed, most—of my questions during the debate, but I should be very pleased to receive a written response to some of them if my hon. Friend the Minister finds that convenient.
Clause 2(5) states:
An offer to make amends under this section may not be made by a person after serving a defence in defamation proceedings brought against him by the aggrieved party in respect of the publication in question.
I ask, "Why not?" If a defendant, having overreached himself, realises that he should more sensibly come to terms with the plaintiff and he can do so by offering to make amends under clause 2, he should be allowed to do so even if that requires that he withdraw his already-served defence.
Clause 5 deals with limitation and I wish to echo the concerns of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), which, I believe, are uppermost in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). I suggest that a year is too short unless other safeguards are built in. I note the point made by the hon. Member for Brent, South that those who are involved in police disciplinary proceedings may exceed the year before the proceedings are concluded, but the court can take that factor into account when it exercises its discretion to extend the limitation period. Would not it be more sensible to leave the limitation period at three years rather than allowing an additional discretion to the court?
The same applies—the point may be made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay—to Press Complaints Commission matters. I stand to be corrected, but I


understand that the Press Complaints Commission will not accept complaints if proceedings have already been initiated. If a plaintiff issues proceedings within a few days or weeks of the cause of action arising, he is prohibited from going to the PCC. If the limitation period is to be reduced to a year, the rules of the PCC should be adjusted so that an action can be commenced. The proceedings could be stayed pending the resolution of the PCC hearing. The simple answer is to leave at three years the limitation period for causes of action in libel and slander and others in clause 5(3).
I also note the points that the hon. Member for Brent, South made about poverty. Some litigants will not be able to bring a case immediately because they do not have the funds. Many people are assisted by, for example, the Police Federation, other trade associations and trade unions and they are not inhibited by lack of funds, but others will not have such assistance and they should be given the opportunity to raise the money before bringing proceedings. As I said earlier, the court has a discretion to extend the limitation period, but it is tidier and more sensible to leave the limitation period as it is.
Clause 7 deals with the meaning of a statement and states:
In defamation proceedings the courts shall not be asked to rule whether a statement is arguably capable, as opposed to capable, of bearing a particular meaning or meanings attributed to it.
I welcome that change to the rules about the joining of issue on what a defamatory statement may or may not mean. At the moment, despite the introduction of order 82, rule 3A, the procedures for defamation are being used as a dead bat and not always as intended, following the case of Keays v. Murdoch Magazines (UK) Ltd.
I am worried about some of the philosophy behind the summary disposal aspect of the Bill. The provisions have some good bits and some less good bits and I am concerned about the limit of £10,000 in clause 9(l)(c). I appreciate that that figure can be adjusted—and may be adjusted—upwards, but many litigants do not want an award of what, to a newspaper, is no more than petty cash. They want a public vindication of their reputations. Even when the defendant cannot afford to pay the huge sums awarded as compensation, the fact that a jury or judge has awarded a large sum often acts as a vindication and a message to the world. One has to think only of the case of Lord Aldington, who was awarded £1.5 million. I must confess that I acted for one of the less successful parties in that case. I doubt that Lord Aldington will collect that £1.5 million, but at least the world knows that the jury thought so little of the conduct of the defendants—and possibly at least one of their counsel—that it found it necessary to award £1.5 million to mark its disapproval.
I appreciate that the cases that may come before the courts under the summary disposal procedure will not be the Aldington-Tolstoy type of case—under clause 8(4)(d), cases of serious libel, which are widely published, are not suitable for summary procedure—but the procedure still causes me some difficulties, not least because it gives the court editorial power over newspapers. The court will have the power to order a defendant to publish or cause to be published a suitable correction and apology. It would be better for apologies and corrections to be agreed between the warring parties, rather than ordered by the court. What will be the consequence of disobeying that order? Will there be a contempt procedure or will the court enforce the order in some other unspecified way?
I am also concerned about clause 10, which authorises
the court at any stage of the proceedings—
(i) to treat any application, pleading or other step in the proceedings as an application for summary disposal".
The intention behind that is that the court should get a grip on proceedings that should not been allowed to live and dispose of defences that have no merit. I applaud the hands-on approach that the courts take these days and that the Bill would inject into this aspect of the law, but we should be careful about allowing the courts to take too interventionist an approach. Proceedings take place between two citizens and, ideally and subject to safeguards, those parties should work out how their cases and defences should be run.
Clause 13 deals with the rule under Scott v. Sampson. I am in two minds about the clause, although I do not intend to join the Liberal Democrats on that account. We must be careful that a case that may be about only the meaning of words—and thus, in addition, damages—does not extend into a long debate about matters that are not directly connected to the libel. I do not accept the criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), sincere though they may have been, because some of them were unreal. But there is a danger that a simple trial could be extended unnecessarily or unfairly because a plaintiff must have a right to respond to, and to seek to demonstrate to be untrue, the allegations made against him in mitigation of damages by the defendant. We must be careful not to extend trials unnecessarily.
Clause 14 is the most contentious. I shall not enter a long argument about the merits or demerits of the amendment tabled by Lord Hoffmann in another place, but I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and others interested in the subject, to study carefully the report of the Third Reading of the Bill in another place on 7 May at columns 29–33, 33–35 and 38–42 and to read Lord Hoffmann's speech at columns 24–29. There is much to be learnt there and some of it has been repeated by the hon. Member for Brent, South and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). Others may share their views, but I think that it would be a mistake, despite my great sympathy for my hon. Friends the Members for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and for Torbay.

Mr. Allason: Hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Gamier: Following his success in the law courts on a number of occasions, although not last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay can probably be dubbed "my learned Friend". He certainly claims to be.
I think that it would be unwise to bolt on to a defamation Bill a clause that will fundamentally adjust the relationship of hon. Members with their constituents. After all, we are the guardians of the privileges of Parliament and we should be careful before putting them into the hands of an individual hon. Member.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay was not quite right when he said that unless the clause is part of the Bill no Member of Parliament will be able to bring a libel action. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights comes into play only in cases that will require a court to impeach or question the proceedings, speeches or debates of the House or another place. All I ask is that my hon. Friends bear it in mind that this issue is bigger than their personal problems.
I do not say that to belittle their appreciation of their own problems, but the constitutional issues are bigger and should be thought about more carefully before we include clause 14 in the Bill. I suggest that a more sensible means of dealing with it should be found.
Statutory privilege is dealt with in clause 15. It is a welcome updating of the list of proceedings that can be safely reported by non-malicious newspapers. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire does not believe that there is such a creature as a non-malicious newspaper, but I can assure him that there is, even if we do not meet it very often.
I have a problem. Paragraph 12 in part II of the schedule to the Defamation Act 1952 states:
A copy or fair and accurate report or summary of any notice or other matter issued for the information of the public by or on behalf of any government department, officer of state, local authority or chief officer of police.
That was included in the category of statement that was privileged subject to explanation or contradiction. It seems to be missing from the schedule to this Bill. I wonder whether that is a mistake.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: While my hon. and learned Friend is dealing with qualified privilege, does he think that it would be appropriate, between now and the Committee stage, to look at the judgment referred to this morning in The Daily Telegraph where a press conference was held by a judge not to be a public meeting and a newspaper lost an action on those grounds? Should not that be clarified at the same time?

Mr. Garnier: I am sure that if my hon. Friend is lucky enough to be chosen to be a member of the Committee, he will be able to draw that to hon. Members' attention.
Those are my brief comments about this otherwise welcome Bill. It brings up to date certain aspects of the law of defamation and I fear that it may bring me some pleasure a little further down the Strand. That is another matter and the Nolan committee may prevent me from speaking on it in the future. When my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has a few quiet moments, I hope that he will consider the points that I have made, which apart from my comments on clause 14 are not destructive of the passage of the Bill, which, in broad essence, I am happy to welcome.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Although I am a practising member of the Bar, I would not claim the expertise of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) in defamation law. I recall once drafting a statement of claim against the Liverpool Daily Post, and there ceases my contribution to the annals of defamation law. Sometimes in later life we gain the opportunity to dip our finger into that lucrative field which the hon. and learned Member has enjoyed for many years, although no doubt less so now because of his responsibilities in the House.
Clause 14 has become known as the Hoffmann amendment. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) took good and ample advantage during his speech of his parliamentary

privilege—well, not of his parliamentary privilege, but his right to use the privilege of the House. The confusion in the way in which I just expressed that depicts the misunderstanding of the dilemma facing many hon. Members.
The privilege is not the privilege of an individual hon. Member, but of the House. Indeed, in the Privy Council case of Prebble, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, on behalf of the Judicial Committee, said:
The privilege protected by Article 9 is the privilege of parliament itself. The actions of any individual Member of Parliament, even if he has an individual privilege of his own, cannot determine whether or not the privilege of Parliament is to apply".
Those words seem to define clearly the dilemma that we face: are we to hand to individual hon. Members an immunity—a privilege—of the entire House, which has been such since article 9 was enacted?
What troubles me greatly is that we do not have the tradition in either this House or the other place of granting hon. Members immunities from suit. The Hoffmann amendment smacks of the continental tradition of giving members of legislatures immunities from suit or at least the right to pick and choose their way among the privileges available to such a member.
It is worth reflecting on the fact that far more hon. Members have enjoyed the protection of privilege than have suffered from its limiting effects. Probably every day in the House hon. Members take advantage of parliamentary privilege for the benefit of their constituents, whereas, once in a lifetime a case such as that affecting the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) comes before the courts showing itself to be an anomaly.
I am sure that all hon. Members have a degree of sympathy with the hon. Member for Tatton, who wishes to bring his action. I would not seek to obstruct his ability to do so, but it seems that the Hoffmann amendment is not the way to do it. Indeed, it is not clear that Lord Hoffmann thought that it was the way to do it. In the other place he said that it would be wrong not to test the opinion of the House and a Division then took place. One cannot escape noticing that, having commended the amendment to the other place, although Lord Hoffmann did not vote against it, he did not vote for it. That creates a puzzle. It seems to indicate that he may have had some misgivings about whether it was appropriate, although he did not express himself in terms of neutrality when moving the amendment.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: For the sake of clarification, I should make it clear that in his speech Lord Hoffmann gave the other place an indication of his intention not to vote on the issue. He indicated, in general terms, that he did not consider himself to be an advocate, but felt that in the circumstances it was necessary that the issue should be debated. It would be wrong to invest some sort of mystery into his actions.

Mr. Carlile: I read the debate and saw that he said something along those lines. However, it is right to reflect on the fact that it is not unusual for Law Lords to speak in debates or for them to vote. It is not all that unusual for Law Lords to move amendments where they feel that it is appropriate to do so, and it is normal for them to support those amendments. What happened in this case was highly unusual and we have not heard Lord


Hoffmann's explanation of why he acted as he did. Since that debate, it has been brought to my attention that many of their lordships thought that Lord Hoffmann's decision not to support his amendment was odd. They wish to hear an explanation of why he acted in that way.
On this important issue, it does not present much of a challenge to produce an amendment to article 9 of the Bill of Rights that would meet the requirements of the hon. Member for Tatton and the requirement of retaining the privilege as the privilege of the House.

It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — Bodmin Moor Commons Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

Mr. Robert Hicks: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill's provisions are modest. The Bill is essentially about land management and conservation. Its principal proposal is to establish a Bodmin moor commoners council on a statutory basis. All other objectives in the Bill relate to the functions, work and operations of the council.
The Bill does not seek to deal with the wider question of access. I must emphasise, however, that nothing in the Bill alters the availability of public access to the commons. Public access was discussed extensively when the Bill was considered in the other place, but at that stage the clause relating to wider public access was withdrawn.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Why is there not, under the Bill, a right of access to Bodmin moor for horse riders? May I remind my hon. Friend that a similar lack of provision under the Dartmoor Commons Bill in 1985 led to its defeat neck and crop?

Mr. Hicks: In view of my hon. Friend's experiences with the Dartmoor Commons Bill, I am pleased and relieved to tell him that the two petitions that were lodged against the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill have been withdrawn because the promoters have been successful in reaching an accommodation with the petitioners in respect of horse riding.
Although this Bill's objectives are limited, they are of real significance to the people who live and work on the moor. Local Bodmin moor communities are looking to the House today to give its support to what they seek and have asked their elected representatives to deliver.
The origins of the legislation go back to January 1992, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. At that time, he was considering extending the number of environmentally sensitive areas and many of us were anxious that Bodmin moor should be included in that list.
My right hon. Friend kindly agreed to receive a delegation from Cornwall, which I arranged and led. Those attending included the then hon. Member for North Cornwall, and I am pleased to see his successor here today in support of the Bill because—as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will know with your west country links—since the redistribution of constituencies in 1983 the majority of Bodmin moor is now located in the North Cornwall constituency rather than in mine.
Members of that delegation included representatives from Cornwall county council, the two district councils that cover Bodmin moor—North Cornwall and Caradon—the Bodmin Moor Commoners Association, representatives from both the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association and the co-ordinator of the Minions Heritage Trust project.
Irrespective of the merits of the case for Bodmin moor to be designated an environmentally sensitive area, which we presented on that occasion, my right hon. Friend was


unable to agree to our request. His reason was succinct and understandable. I recall vividly his saying to me on that occasion, "Bob—much as I would like to designate Bodmin moor an ESA, I am afraid that I cannot do this because there is no organisation or body in place with which I can treat"— a lovely old-fashioned word that is appropriate for my right hon. Friend to use. That was the sole reason for the rejection—that no statutory authority could guarantee to deliver the obligations that ESA status demands. I mention that small, but significant piece of political history because it explains concisely why the House is considering this Bill.
It may help if I say a brief word about the geography of Bodmin moor and about the nature and extent of present-day economic activities. From that, I hope that the House will recognise how important it is that the Bill should obtain its Second Reading today—so that in time, I hope, Bodmin moor can be designated an environmentally sensitive area.
Bodmin moor is the most south-westerly upland area in the United Kingdom. It is an unglaciated granite area with a distinctive topography. Although characterised by large tracts of semi-natural habitat, there is considerable landscape diversity. It almost goes without saying that a great variety of wildlife is found on the moor.
Those physical components are reflected in man's response to that environment over the centuries. Farming has undoubtedly always been the principal economic activity and has helped shape the environment as we know it today. The traditional land use of the commons is grazing by cattle and sheep belonging to occupants of moorland farms and to people who live adjacent to the moor and have grazing rights.

Mr. Anthony Steen: My hon. Friend kindly supported me when I piloted the Dartmoor Commons Bill through the House in 1985 and I pay tribute to him for his support, but my concern about this Bill is that it excludes the statutory right of access for members of the public and the statutory right of the horseman. Other than that, I am entirely with him on the Bill, but why have those two important ingredients been left out? In Dartmoor national park, every walker has a statutory right to walk and every rider to ride across the moor, despite the landowners. As Bodmin moor is not a national park, my hon. Friend has a double duty to include such a provision in the Bill.

Mr. Hicks: Perhaps my hon. Friend was not here when I responded to a similar intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). As a result of an accommodation agreed by the Bill's promoters— Cornwall county council—the questions of access for horse riding are covered. The promoters initially tried very hard to accommodate the issue of pedestrian access. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)—if I may refer to him in such terms in this debate—will deal specifically with the sequence of events in respect of the more general question of access. In the end, the promoters took the view that access was a national issue and that it would not be appropriate to deal with it in a Bill which, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who has been listening very carefully, will know, provides for a statutorily based

authority to deal with conservation, land use, and so on with respect to Bodmin moor. Bodmin moor is not within a national park; it does not have such a statutory basis.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I have been present since the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech and I found the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) very vague and imprecise. I am not certain that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks) has strengthened his assurances greatly in answering the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). We do not know what accommodations have been agreed with the petitioners. Will the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall give us an absolute guarantee that the Bill will not lead to a reduction in access to Bodmin moor for pedestrians and for horsewomen and horsemen?

Mr. Hicks: I am glad to be able to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Nothing in the Bill in any way reduces the existing rights of access. The fact that the two sets of petitioners have withdrawn their respective petitions as a consequence of accommodations agreed by the promoters shows that the petitioners are now satisfied that there will be no depletion of existing rights.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about "rights". As I understand it, there are very few rights to go on to the moor. It is simply custom and practice that enables people to go on to the moor. If the hon. Gentleman were able to guarantee that people could go on to the moor without restriction, it would go a long way to meet the concerns. He knows that the question of rights is somewhat doubtful. I am particularly interested in a commoner giving me the right to go on the moor. The hon. Gentleman referred to national legislation. Nationally, if I ask a farmer whether I can walk across his fields and he gives me permission, that is all that I need. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a commoner on Bodmin moor could give me such a right?

Mr. Hicks: The hon. Gentleman knows that the great majority of land historically and euphemistically referred to as commons is in private ownership. The House should be addressing the fundamental point that nothing in the Bill in any way reduces the existing practices—if the hon. Gentleman does not like my use of the word "rights"— concerning pedestrian access.
I shall turn to the powers of the new statutory body in a moment. It will be incumbent on that body to draw up certain proposals and plans of action to exclude certain activities which currently take place on the moor, and I am certain that the hon. Gentleman, the promoters and I are all anxious that those provisions should be put in place, as they will prevent the moor, which is already fragile, from deteriorating any further. As I said, one of the Bill's purposes is to promote conservation of the moor.

Mr. Steen: Before my hon. Friend moves on, may I thank him for his great generosity and customary patience? The Bill is obviously important to the west country, and my hon. Friend's experience of all the west country moors is well known to the House. My hon. Friend differentiates between Dartmoor and Bodmin


moor, both of which are owned by commoners, on the basis that Dartmoor is a national park while Bodmin moor is open moorland. National parks have national park authorities to protect walkers and riders. Surely walkers and riders need statutory rights to Bodmin moor, the more so since the moor is not under such authority. Bearing in mind that recreation and the environment are so important to hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, should we not be giving walkers and riders some statutory rights? That is the trend; it started on Dartmoor. Surely with a little fine tuning such a right could be achieved in respect of Bodmin moor as well.

Mr. Hicks: I respectfully point out to my hon. Friend that I was born and bred on Dartmoor—indeed, my mother still lives in the Dartmoor national park. National parks legislation is national legislation. I f6rget the date of the original national parks legislation—

Mr. Flynn: It was 1947.

Mr. Hicks: That national legislation was passed by the House in 1947 or 1948. This Bill is a private Bill, promoted by Cornwall county council, to deal with a specific difficulty. That is why, for totally understandable reasons, the promoters feel that it is not appropriate to encompass the wider national question of access. Perhaps I may be allowed to make some progress.
I was saying that farming has undoubtedly always been the principal economic activity and has helped to shape and modify the environment as we know it today. The commons have traditionally been used for grazing sheep and cattle belonging to the occupants of moorland farms or to those who live adjacent to the moor and have grazing rights. Today, about 30 parcels of common land—large and small—are separately registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965.
I should also inform the House that Bodmin moor is classified as a less-favoured area under a European Community directive, and it lies in the Cornwall area of outstanding natural beauty. Other parts are recognised as areas of great landscape value, and many more specialist designations cover smaller areas such as sites of special scientific interest, or particular features including ancient monuments and archaeological sites, under the jurisdiction of statutory bodies such as English Nature and English Heritage.
I hope that that brief description of the moor will provide sufficient evidence to establish not only that it is crucial for the correct legislative framework to be put in place to safeguard the conservation and enhancement of the commons, but that that objective is compatible with— indeed, complementary to—a management of the commons that will allow those who live and work there to sustain their economic livelihood and thus to continue with both their traditional and their newer ways of life.

Mr. Steen: As a final intervention, may I ask my hon. Friend—

Mr. Hicks: How does my hon. Friend know that I have given way to him?

Mr. Steen: I thought that my hon. Friend would be generous. I knew that his customary generous habit would not desert him, even under great provocation.
I want to clarify one point. My hon. Friend differentiated between Dartmoor and Exmoor on the basis that the arrangements for Dartmoor are part of national legislation. But may I remind him that the Dartmoor Commons Bill of 1985 was introduced by Devon county council, just as this Bill is being introduced by Cornwall county council? It happens that the categorisation of the moors is different, but the type of promoter is the same. As Devon county council introduced a statutory right of access for walkers in its legislation, surely Cornwall county council can do the same.

Mr. Hicks: I am tempted to pass on to the House what my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) muttered to me—that the great deregulator is now apparently intervening to try to introduce greater regulation into our legislation. [Interruption.] No, I am not "screwing it up", as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams so bluntly puts it.
I was hoping that I would not have to bore the House by telling hon. Members so, but I happen to be a geographer by training. It is more than 26 years since I was involved with the subject, but I still remember that the original designation of Dartmoor as a national park resulted from national legislation. The Dartmoor Commons Bill, promoted by Devon county council, came later.
Perhaps I may be allowed to move on now. The Bill is being promoted by Cornwall county council and has the support not only of the two district councils affected, North Cornwall and Caradon, but of all the political groupings on all three of those councils—Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat, plus Mebyon Kernow and the independents.
Equally important is the fact that the Bill enjoys the support of the commoners and the landowners, who are clearly the key participants in the proposals, as well as organisations such as the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and local community and recreational groups. Especially significant is the fact that to the best of my knowledge there have been no objections either formal or informal from local people or groups who form part of national amenity and recreational organisations.
There is a strong conesnsus in Cornwall in support of the Bill—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams is listening when I say that. Indeed, many people throughout the duchy have been surprised and disappointed by the fact that the Bill has taken so long to reach the House, especially as it had its Second Reading in another place on 7 June 1994, almost two years ago. If it were to fail at this stage, people in Cornwall would be astonished and annoyed that Parliament, for whatever reasons, had failed to respond to their legitimate needs and aspirations.
As I have already said, the most important provision in the Bill is the establishment of a commoners council. Membership is defined in clause 3. The commoners would form the largest group on the council, but it would also include representatives of local authorities and landowners, as well as one or two other special categories. The remainder of the Bill is concerned with the structure, funding, functions and operations of the council.
I remind the House that one important duty of the council is to prepare a management plan after consultation with Cornwall county council, with statutory bodies such


as English Nature, English Heritage and the Countryside Commission, and with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for the Environment. Furthermore, the management plan and any amendments will have effect only when approved by those two Ministers.
The council will also have the power to make regulations designed to control the exercise of common rights in the interests of the commons as a whole. The precise nature and purpose of those objectives are set out in clause 6. As well as having those statutory responsibilities to protect and manage the commons, the council will have powers to repair damage and to provide for open-air recreational uses of the land. Those provisions are the subject of the proposed amendments to the Bill that I have already mentioned, which have been negotiated with petitioners who have now withdrawn their objections.
It would be a tragedy if the Bill were not given a Second Reading tonight. Its provisions are what the local communities have asked for. I say unashamedly that in this day and age it would be extraordinary if the House were to deny a Second Reading to a measure that would protect and enhance the environment, promote the economic well-being of the local community of Bodmin moor, and facilitate public access, as well as rendering such access a more enjoyable experience.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Imust announce to the House that Madam Speaker has not selected the motion for an instruction.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. It would be helpful if I gave the Government's view.
We welcome the Bill, which we believe will do a great deal of good. Both my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food strongly support the principle that common land should be subject to proper and effective management. The House will notice that the Minister for Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), is also present this evening.
Although comprehensive legislation along the lines of that proposed in 1986 by the Common Land Forum is neither feasible nor practical, in the White Paper, "Rural England", the Government undertook to support solutions tailored to local circumstances, such as those provided by the Bill.
I congratulate the promoters on their efforts to provide the means by which proper management of the commons of Bodmin moor can be accomplished.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister explain something to the House? He said that the Government had decided to drop the idea of national legislation on access to and regulation of the commons—a decision that disappoints many people. As I understood it, the argument was that such matters should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. So surely when we are dealing with a particular case, the Minister cannot justify failing to make access provision in the Bill.

Mr. Clappison: The Government are firmly of the view that there should be local solutions tailored to local

needs. We welcome the Bill as an example of something that will give rise to a local solution. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks) has clearly set out the position on access in response to repeated interventions, and has dealt with the effect that the legislation will have.

Mr. Steen: With respect, I do not think that the matter has been dealt with satisfactorily. There is a national park in Dartmoor and a similar, although smaller, landmass some 50 or 60 miles away at Bodmin. Your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, is very close to Dartmoor, and you will be aware that some 8 million people enjoy the beauties of Dartmoor, an increasing number of whom travel across Bodmin moor. Can the Minister explain why the public haye no right to leave their cars and go on to the private land at Bodmin moor, but have a statutory right to do so on Dartmoor? I fear that the Bill will bring the landowners together, and will exclude the public who have no right to go on the moor. The Bill may protect the commons from overgrazing, but will not allow the public to have the same free access to Bodmin that they currently enjoy on Dartmoor.

Mr. Clappison: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, but he must realise the current position that was explained clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall, who made it clear that local solutions had been suggested for this case. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who is interested in local solutions, will appreciate the importance of seeking such a solution in this case.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I want to come to the aid of the Minister. For six years, I was a member of the Dartmoor national park committee, and I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steer) has answered his own question. Dartmoor was designated as a national park, and one of the reasons for that was that it was necessary in national legislation to provide for specific rights of access on Dartmoor.
Some might think that Bodmin moor should also have been designated as national park, but the Bill is not a national park designation Bill. If it were, it would come from the Treasury Bench and we could discuss it in those terms. However, the Minister is absolutely right and I support him—this is a local response to a local problem, and it is a private Bill for that reason. If the hon. Member for South Hams wants to join me in looking at the case for making Bodmin moor a national park, we can do so on another day, as it is a separate issue.

Mr. Clappison: A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the local question, and I made it clear at the outset that the Government are in favour of local solutions in this context. Among the local solutions that will be put in place, the Bill will seek to provide a comprehensive basis for the management of grazing on the commons and the promotion of the conservation of wildlife and habitats. I am sure that that objective will command wide support in the House this evening, and I therefore recommend that the Bill be given a Second Reading and be allowed to proceed in the usual way to Committee for detailed consideration.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Although this is a private Bill, I wish to put on record the position of the official Opposition. We very much support the Bill in principle, and we accept that it is important for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks). There is a need for proper management of the moor, particularly grazing management. That is an important conservation tool, although it can cause problems in terms of other grazing. Grazing can also be important in protecting plant species if managed correctly. There is a sound argument for the introduction of a commoners council, and we agree that it should be given the duty to draw up a management plan in consultation with the county council and the various statutory bodies. That will be a great advantage in bringing together the disparate ownership of the land, as the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall outlined.
For all those reasons, we think that the main thrust of the Bill is absolutely correct, and we would like to see it proceed. We have noted—and perhaps I can speak on a more personal level—the concerns about public access and the points that were reasonably made by the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). I recognise the issues and the differences between Dartmoor and Bodmin, but the Bill is being promoted in a similar way to the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 and I would have thought that it was not unreasonable to expect that the Bill would contain a provision for public access.
I am sorry that there has not been more agreement between the promoters and the considerable number of organisations which have petitioned against the Bill. These organisations are well respected, and include the Open Spaces Society, the British Mountaineering Council and the Youth Hostels Association. These are national and responsible organisations, and I am sure that their representations on access provision have been constructive and reasonable.
The 1985 Common Land Forum recommended that there should be access to common lands, and Labour thought that the recommendations were sensible and constructive. We are sorry that they have not been acted upon, and although it seemed at one stage that the Government were going to implement them, that has not taken place to date. I also note that the Countryside Commission has expressed great disappointment that the access arrangements have been withdrawn from the Bill. The commission has made it clear that it believes that such arrangements should be included if at all possible, and again that is not unreasonable.
In the discussions on the Bill, the issue of the right to roam—and whether it should be dealt with by a national policy or by legislation of the kind we are debating—has been raised. I understand the arguments, and the Labour party is committed to a qualified right to roam. The Country Landowners Association today published the document "Access 2000", which has a bearing on the Bill. The document contains a number of sensible suggestions, although I confess that I was surprised to see in the document and in some sections of the farming press that Labour is promoting a universal right to roam. I would like to state for the record that that has never been a right.
The CLA document contains a reference from the Liberal Democrats' submission—I do not know who provided it—saying that Labour is promoting a

"near-universal" right to roam. That seems to suggest that we are advocating that people should go through other people's gardens or crops, or appear in their back yards. That was never the case. Our proposals on the right to roam apply to common land and to open moorland, but that right would have to be qualified in terms of sensible restrictions for land management and conservation management, and for the various rural activities which may require areas to be closed at times. There is a question as to whether we should wait for the next Labour Government to bring in the national policy or whether we should take this opportunity to ensure that there is adequate legislation at present. I am in favour of the former, but the House has been given an opportunity by the Bill and it should be taken.
I am concerned about the powers of the commoners council—I do not know whether the sponsor of the Bill can deal with this—because it appears that the council has the power to restrict access. While one could argue that it also has the power to encourage access—I do not dispute that—the fact remains that the majority of places on the council will be filled by landowners. They may well want to be reasonable and to encourage access in a balanced way. I am sure that that is so, but it may also be that, for whatever reason, that body may restrict access at certain times or to certain parts of the moor. I would welcome some clarification on that as it is a matter of concern, particularly for some of the petitioners.

Mr. Steen: Is not the point that the hon. Gentleman is making this: if a Bill is brought before the House for a particular area of the country, it must be a special and definable geographical area, not just a group of fields. Bodmin moor is definable and, that being so, special considerations apply. It is not like anyone's back yard or field—like Dartmoor, which happens to be a national park—Bodmin moor is a geographical area. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be rights for people to roam and walk in the area and that they should not be barred by a commoners council technically erecting a ring fence around it and saying, "You have no rights"?

Mr. Morley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who knows the issues very well. I pay tribute to his involvement with the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985. Bodmin clearly is a definable area and it is not unreasonable that people should have access to it. Indeed, there is a long history of access to many parts of the moor and I am sure that local groups recognise that. The concern is over what may, or may not, happen and whether there is a legal right of access or a right that might at some stage be blocked for whatever reason. I think that I am right in saying that access to Dartmoor is governed by byelaws, which may well be a better regulatory approach.

Mr. Steen: The House gave a statutory right for riders and walkers to walk in the national park—I think that the Dartmoor Commons Act was the first private Bill to give such a right and it was introduced by a county council. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support my view that it is a slightly retrograde step if, 12 years later, we do not have the same rights for Bodmin.

Mr. Morley: I understand that and I agree. In that 12-year period, I imagine that the demand for public


access has grown and that more groups now want such access. In that respect, the provision certainly seems a retrograde step. Given all the sensible measures in the Bill and all the worthwhile things that it is trying to do, this seems to be an opportunity to tackle the issue of public access.
With a commoners council and a Bill of this type, an application can be made for Bodmin to become an environmentally sensitive area. Again, that is a sensible move and the Opposition would support it. ESAs have a valuable role to play in supporting local farmers, particularly in the less-favoured areas where incomes are low, and ensuring a proper management regime within which they can operate within. That will involve such things as maximum stocking densities, which are very important. Such schemes have worked well. ESAs involve public money, however, and if we are putting public money into land management schemes it is not unreasonable for the public, who are paying, to derive some benefit. One of the benefits is access to the moor. I accept that environmental management is also a benefit.

Mr. Bennett: There are two arguments about letting people go into environmentally sensitive areas. The first is that people can see that the money is being well spent. The second concerns balance and, if one is reducing stocking levels, it ought to be possible to allow more access.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I know of his long-standing interest in rights of access. I strongly endorse the need for balance. We are talking of a balance between the needs of landowners, farmers, the local community and national recreation groups. We very much support that balance and I am not sure that it is quite right in the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Steen: I have walked over Dartmoor for many years and occasionally over Bodmin moor. If the promoters fear that, by putting in a statutory right of access, they will be swamped by charabancs of tourists, they should realise that Bodmin is even more inhospitable to walk over than Dartmoor—it is the most difficult and treacherous moor. The hon. Gentleman and the landowners will be relieved to know that giving the public a statutory right of access would not result in the place being covered with thousands of tourists.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Member knows the area well and I am sure that he is right. I have been researching statutory access to help with Labour's policy formation. I had talks about the New Forest, which is very much a honeypot area, with the Forestry Commission. The commission's surveys show that a high proportion of people do not stray far from their cars when they park in the car parks provided, another group of people might walk further, but do not stray from the footpaths and only a comparatively small number of serious walkers go into the more remote and difficult areas—they are responsible people when it comes to having regard to the environment.

Mr. Steen: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman by giving him the figures for Dartmoor—the figures for Bodmin would not be dissimilar— 70 per cent. of the

people who travel across the moor do not stop, but admire the view while driving slowly and carefully, 28 per cent. stop their cars and walk up to 100 yd and only the remaining 2 or 3 per cent. go beyond 100 yd. If that figure is the same for Bodmin, the promoters and the landowners have nothing to fear.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman's figures are similar to those of the Forestry Commission and that puts the issue into perspective.
There are honeypot areas that attract large numbers of people and require management because of the pressures on the environment, but I am not sure that Bodmin moor is one of those areas as it is remote. In that respect, I am surprised that the promoters have not reached some accommodation with the people who have been petitioning against the Bill. The Opposition want the Bill to progress and to become law. We want an accommodation between those groups.
In environmentally sensitive areas, an element of public subsidy is involved. It is not, therefore, unreasonable for access to be one of the criteria that is taken into account. One can achieve a balance between the not unreasonable desire for recreation and the management needs of local farmers and landowners. If access were a problem for environmental or management reasons, perhaps the commoners council could deal with it. We do not disagree with such an approach. We want a constructive approach.
There are not many opportunities to promote legislation such as this Bill, which contains so many worthwhile elements. It is also an opportunity to give people a right of access. I would have thought that Cornwall county council would have jumped at that. I understand that originally the landowning interests were not especially averse to it.
The Country Landowners Association document that was launched today makes it clear that it wants to promote increased access. That is a worthwhile objective. The CLA has the opportunity to support the principles outlined in its document though a Bill such as this. I hope that its promoters take note of the points made by the groups that have petitioned against it and especially those by the hon. Member for South Hams, who put his case very well. The Government should bear them in mind, especially as they originally said that they would support the findings of the Common Land Forum. If they once thought that the forum's 1985 recommendations were reasonable, this is an opportunity to incorporate some of them in a measure that would meet with universal support.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I had hoped to be able to speak at the end of the debate so that I could respond to as many as possible of the points made by hon. Members. However, I was forewarned that if I did, I might be squeezed out by hon. Members with a different agenda. I shall try to respond to the points that have been raised so far.
I must declare an interest—not financial, but personal. I live on the edge of Bodmin moor and I walk on it almost every weekend. Some weekends, I spend more time on it than in my garden, which results in calamity for the latter. I have had a long association with the moor and with Dartmoor, as I was previously a councillor in Devon. My mother unfortunately emigrated to England and


married a Devonian. When I returned to Cornwall, I spent much time getting to know the moor. I have a long family association with the area going back to 1066.
I have also had a long association with the various access organisations in Cornwall and nationally. I endorse the view of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) about the value of the Common Land Forum. If his statement is a commitment that an incoming Labour Government will promote legislation on the basis of the forum's proposals, I very much welcome it.
As the Minister said, legislation to promote access to common land must be national. It would be inappropriate to use a local private Bill as a stalking horse. However, I welcome on behalf of the promoters the fact that both the Labour Front-Bench spokesman and the Government have committed themselves to the Bill's principles and to its passage to a Second Reading. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks), who eloquently promoted the Bill, both today and on many previous occasions locally, will join me in welcoming that.
Clearly, there is a problem with the Bill, but I believe that it can and should be resolved. The Bill and the environmentally sensitive area status that we hope that it will permit are primarily concerned with the conservation, and the environmental and agricultural management of the moor.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe made copious references to ESAs. I share his concern that public money should not only be invested wisely but seen to be invested wisely. He and the Minister for Rural Affairs, who was also in the Chamber and supports the Bill, would agree that ESAs are not inherently about public access. Several of them preclude public access because the ecology of their habitats is so sensitive and vulnerable that public access would be improper. Neither in national nor in European Union terms does ESA status inherently increase or change rights of public access, and nor should it. Its primary purpose is environmental enhancement.
The statement that the promoters released to coincide with the Bill clearly sets out its purpose and meets some of the objections that have been made this evening. First and foremost, it would grant powers to promote grazing management and conservation of the commons. The target is specific and carefully defined. As the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall said, it has had the full rigour of examination in the other place over a long period. It has been the subject of petitions and much local consultation. He and I have met many organisations and individuals during the Bill's passage through the other place and I endorse his statement that it enjoys the widest possible support in Cornwall—including support from both environmental and access organisations.
It is true that the commoners council is empowered to regulate the exercise of common rights in the interests of the commons as a whole but, as the promoters' statement says:
In discharging that duty the Council is to have due regard to the conservation of the commons and to the existing permitted use of the commons as a place of resort for open air recreation.

Mr. Bennett: What does "due regard" mean? Does it not mean that as long as the council considers the present access carefully, it will be entitled to alter it?

Mr. Tyler: I will come back to that as my speech unfolds.
The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has just slipped out of the Chamber but I assure him that it is recognised that there are growing pressures on the moor from peaceful recreation. However, there are also pressures from less peaceful recreations. I know, from my experience as a member and vice-chairman of the Dartmoor national park committee for five years, that Dartmoor has already experienced major problems. It is important that powers should be available, for example, to control access for four-wheeled vehicles which not only damage the moor's ecology but make it difficult for other people to enjoy peaceful recreation such as my weekend walks.
There is considerable anxiety in Cornwall about the state of the commons on Bodmin moor. Some suffer from overgrazing while others are insufficiently grazed. As a result, environmental quality is visibly deteriorating in several parts of the moor at an alarming rate. It is intended that the primary purpose of the commoners council should be to take action to correct that deterioration. Such action will involve considerable restrictions on the activities of some local commoners, but they accept that in the interests of the wider community and of the long-term stewardship of the land.
I emphasise that there is nothing in the Bill that alters the availability of the commons for public access. It may be that a better definition of open country, as the Common Land Forum has suggested, would, in the long term, greatly benefit Bodmin moor and other parts of the UK. However, it would be inappropriate to use a private Bill to pioneer such a new definition. I reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall that the petitions against the Bill lodged by the British Horse Society and the owners of a riding establishment on the edge of the moor have been withdrawn because they have accepted that the promoters have met their concerns.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned public access. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that discussions have taken place, not only during the passage of the Bill through the Lords and locally, but in the past few days, in anticipation of this debate, and in recognition of the concerns that gave rise to the attempt to lay an instruction before the House and therefore the Committee.
Last week—I am sure that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish will not mind me saying so, because it is material to the discussion—there was a useful meeting, at which I was present, between the promoter and the hon. Gentleman, and at that meeting we sought to find a way to meet his concerns. It was suggested that a voluntary agreement on access might be in place before Royal Assent or before the Act came into operation. That was the subject of some discussion locally. I understand that, yesterday, the promoter, Cornwall county council, agreed that it would seek to achieve that in whatever form was appropriate to the legislation, to enable the Bill to proceed.
I strongly endorse what the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said about the need for balance. That balance is well understood by the promoter and all the organisations that have promoted the Bill. That is why I am delighted to tell the House that I understand that the


promoter is able to put on record tonight that it agrees to seek a voluntary access agreement with the landowners and the commoners of the Bodmin moor commons.

Mr. Bennett: What the hon. Gentleman says goes 90 per cent. of the way towards what we want. We now need evidence of the good intent of the county council. All we need to hear from the hon. Gentleman is that the county council will not seek Royal Assent until the access agreement is in place because, if it goes that far, we can simplify the procedures tremendously. I do not doubt the good will of the county council, but if one or two of the more awkward commoners were to refuse to go along with an access agreement, there is little that the county council can do as things stand. If, however, the county council were to give an undertaking tonight, or very soon after, that it would not go ahead with Royal Assent until the access agreement were in place, I do not say that we could all go home, but we could all go home without saying much more.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he will appreciate that I am a Member of the House, not the promoter. It would be much more appropriate for the specific wording of the statement that he requires to be dealt with in Committee, which is the right place for petitions to be heard; the hon. Gentleman is not a petitioner in his own right.
Following the meeting that I mentioned, at which the hon. Gentleman was most generous with his time—and his coffee—and during which we made good progress, I am able to convey to the House the assurance that the promoter, Cornwall county council, has agreed to seek a voluntary access agreement along the lines suggested at our meeting last week, and the county council has already set in motion the appropriate machinery to make that action take place forthwith.
I accept, as I am sure does the promoter, that that may not meet all the wishes of the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society, which have lodged petitions against the Bill and which, if the Bill is read a Second time tonight, will be entitled to appear before the Committee. However, the Bill is not about compulsion, and Cornwall county council does not propose to embody compulsion in the Bill. That is borne out by negotiations that the promoter has already carried out, as I have said, with the two other petitioners—the British Horse Society and the T.M. international school of horsemanship.
Amendments have been suggested by those two petitioners, and will be submitted for the Committee's approval if the Bill is read a Second time tonight. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the passing of the Bill and the coming into being of the commoners council will not change the position to the detriment of the British Horse Society or its members on or near Bodmin moor or of the T.M. international school of horsemanship. As a result of that agreement, those two petitions have been withdrawn.
The amendments would provide that the commoners council, when preparing the management plan that the Bill requires to be prepared, must have due regard to the existing permitted use of open-air recreation. That includes any existing permitted use by ramblers. Were

that not to be the case, I should not be supporting the Bill tonight, because I believe, as do many others in and around Bodmin moor, that that existing permitted use is of great importance.
The hon. Member for South Hams is probably right that only 2 or 3 per cent. of people who visit Bodmin moor walk miles, as I do. Nevertheless, sometimes we have invasions. Only a few years ago, about 30,000 people came for the so-called White Goddess festival on Davidstow moor, on common land in my constituency, and caused chaos to farmers and everyone else in the local community. It is not inappropriate to be aware that such possible threats can not only destroy the habitat and environment and prevent the quiet enjoyment of the moor by people who walk or ride, but cause immense damage to the local community as a whole.
The suggested amendments would also ensure that the commoners council makes certain that unlawful interference with the commons is precluded, but also ensures that recreational access on foot or horseback does not cause material damage. There is no intention to destroy the sensitive balance that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe rightly mentioned.
There is almost unanimous support for the Bill throughout Cornwall, as the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall said. Conservationists and farmers alike are looking to the House to create an effective framework for more sensitive management of the commons on Bodmin moor. I hope that they will not be disappointed.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I should first declare an interest that does not need to be included in the Register. It is only fair to tell hon. Members that I am an honorary life member of the Ramblers Association and vice-president of the Peak and Northern Footpaths Society. I have spoken on behalf of walkers many times in the House, but I have also spoken several times about the private Bill procedure, which I find very, very unsatisfactory indeed.
As a result of efforts in the House on occasions to delay Bills, it was possible to pass the Public Works Bill, and we have substantially reduced the number of private Bills that come before the House, so we now deal with private Bills rarely. Nevertheless, it is a very unsatisfactory procedure for dealing with the Bill before us.
Traditionally, Bills were used to promote railways, canals and other major works. The tradition grew up that, as the Bill progressed through the two Houses of Parliament, it had to become progressively narrower. In other words, no one's rights could be taken away as the Bill progressed; all that could happen was that people could be exempted from the Bill.
In this case, we have a very odd procedure. When Cornwall county council started to promote the Bill, there was a balance in it. The rights of access were balanced by the right of the commoners to regulate the legislation. By a procedure that I have never quite understood, which is not quite a lottery—I suspect that it is more Machiavellian than that—some Bills start in the House of Lords and some start in the Commons.
In the case of a public Bill, if the Lords remove something from the Bill, it is easy for us to disagree with them and put it back in; or, if the Lords put something


into the Bill, we can remove it. If necessary, the Bill can shuttle backwards and forwards, until eventually a meeting takes place between the two sides, at which usually one or other gives way.
With a Bill such as this, however, if the House of Lords has removed a provision from it, usually the House of Commons cannot put it back. Rather foolishly, the House of Lords removed the provision that guaranteed access. The question is do we have the right to put access back in the Bill as it goes into Committee? At some stage, that could become a major point at issue.
I hope that we can find a way around the problem and thereby avoid some fraught proceedings in this House. I have a suggestion to make. I have talked to the promoters, and proposed that we need not have an access agreement on the face of the Bill. It is perfectly possible for county councils to draw up access agreements, just as it is possible for national parks to make access agreements under legislation dealing with the countryside and dating from the late 1940s.
It would be quite possible for the county council in this case to put in place an access agreement to cover the relevant area before the Bill received Royal Assent. That would restore the balance that we began with. If we do not restore that balance, the people in Cornwall who did not oppose the Bill originally because it contained access provisions will feel cheated because they will not have had the opportunity to petition the House of Lords, assuming as they did that the Bill contained measures of which they approved.

Mr. Tyler: I assure the hon. Gentleman that to my knowledge—I do not know whether the hon. Member for Soufh-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks) can confirm this—there are no petitioners or objectors from Cornwall to the Bill in its present form.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is misled. I am assured by the ramblers and some of the other petitioners that some local groups still object strongly. More to the point, one commoner and two other people telephoned me this afternoon, all claiming to come from Cornwall. Their accents served to confirm that. I rang one of them back, and he was certainly on a Cornwall number, so I have no reason to believe that they were not ringing me in good faith. They said that they had been cheated, and would never have supported such a Bill without the access provisions.
When the county council published notices about the Bill, it still contained the access provisions. These people therefore did not realise that they should petition the House of Lords to strengthen the access provisions. Now the latter have been taken out, so a group of people's rights have been disregarded. I suggest that that is a serious matter.

Mr. Tyler: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the exclusion from the Bill has been widely known about in Cornwall for many months—as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it was in the Lords for a long time. I have met innumerable organisations and people in Cornwall during that period—I suspect that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall has, too—and no doubt the promoters have had representations as well. I find it extraordinary that the only person in the House who

seems to have received these complaints is the hon. Gentleman. We certainly have heard nothing about these people.

Mr. Bennett: I will not pursue the issue now. I merely suggest that there is a way out of an impasse that might involve a great deal of argument and procedure. I have met the promoters we are very close to a deal which would virtually eliminate the problems.
The Bill is being debated today. It will then go into Committee, where no doubt petitioners will want to make their case. Members of the Committee may be sympathetic to the petitioners, so there will be some discussion as to how far access can be reinstated at that stage.
My guess is that the Bill will emerge from Committee just before the summer recess. If it does, it is possible that the Chairman of Ways and Means will find time for it to be debated before the recess—but I am doubtful. There are rumours that there may be no carry-over in the autumn. If there is no carry-over, that may present difficulties. There will have to be a revival motion, either in the autumn or in the next Parliament. Everyone knows that revival motions are debatable, and can prompt a great deal of discussion and argument.
I can see this Bill stretching out a long way into the future. For my part, I do not want to be involved in stretching it out. I hope that the county council can thrash out an access agreement and get it in place so that the promoters can tell the Committee that an access agreement has been reached with the county council, using the powers that it already has. The petitions can then be withdrawn, the Bill can become an unopposed Bill, and it can return to the House in late June or early July. The Bill can then proceed unopposed to Royal Assent by the autumn, and management procedures and access arrangements can be put in place.
There is a good prospect of some sort of agreement being reached. We are asking the promoters to go only a short distance further. The county council has said that it will seek an agreement—it need only take one more step. I admit that that will change the balance of power, but if the county council is keen to get the Bill through at the moment, objections to it from just one or two commoners can stop it; whereas, once the balance of power is changed and restored to what it was when the Bill arrived in the Lords, there is a good chance that agreement will be reached.
I strongly contend that the promoters have a chance now to get their legislation quickly and cheaply and to satisfy the commoners and local people who want their access guaranteed. National groups such as the ramblers would also like to witness a local agreement that has been sensibly reached.
I understand the local problem. I am aware that some— not all—of the commoners are on low incomes and are under pressure to put more stock on the parts of the moor to which they are entitled. They see people in other parts of the country being paid taxpayers' money not to put stock on land but to manage environmentally sensitive areas better and with less stock—thereby preserving the countryside. These local people rightly ask why the same cannot apply to Bodmin moor.
What is preventing that is the fact that no commoner can enter into agreement with the Government about stock levels, because any other commoner can wreck the whole


procedure. That is why the legislation is needed. But if the land is to be managed for the benefit of commoners by limiting stock numbers, access must also be successfully managed.
What is the point of paying out large sums of taxpayers' money to protect environmentally sensitive areas? The answer is that they are part of our heritage, and the argument goes that people should be able to go and look at their inheritance.
I got out the two maps that cover the area in question. I once walked over Bodmin moor, although I admit that it was a wet, misty day, and I saw little besides the footpath in front of me.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about the beast?

Mr. Bennett: I certainly did not see the beast. When I walked the moor, the stories about the beast had not yet surfaced. I do not think that it would have frightened me off, but it might have added some amusement to the walk, especially in the rain. My hon. Friend may have all sorts of ideas about Bodmin moor, but I shall not be sidetracked.
I took the trouble to look at the maps of Bodmin moor, and I was disappointed to see that very few footpaths had been recorded. As many people visit it and it has obvious attractions, particularly in good weather, why are so few footpaths recorded on it?
Clearly, over the years the custom and practice has been that people have walked on the moors and have not been stopped. When rights of way had to be recorded as a result of the legislation in the 1940s, few people found it necessary to claim a right of way, because, de facto, they could walk on the moors. As there is de facto access, one might ask why we need an access agreement.
The practice appears to have changed, however. I can think of large areas of the countryside that used to have de facto access. I am particularly conscious of the Berwyns and the Arans in north Wales, where for more than 100 years people could walk without restriction, until a small group of farmers decided that there should be no access and no right of way, and that people could not walk on that land. We cannot continue having merely de facto access to the moors. It has to be in legislation or an agreement that is worked out by the county council.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, access agreements have worked well throughout the country. There was a tremendous amount of conflict about the peak district in the 1930s, and some of it lasted until the 1950s when people were denied access, but the Peak District national park managed to get access agreements in place. By and large, those agreements have worked.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the peak district, where there is intense demand for walking and recreational pursuits because of the huge conurbations in the surrounding areas, access agreements have not damaged walkers' access to the open moorland?

Mr. Bennett: I was making that very point, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The more access is agreed,

the better it works. Many farmers have said to me, "Twenty years ago, I was a bit worried about the access agreement, but it is now working well. I am pleased to see the walkers on my land, and I prefer them to use the access land rather than the footpaths, as one or two of the footpaths are being worn away. It is much nicer to see them striding out on to the moor."
I have to say to those who are concerned about Bodmin moor—and the commoners who may be doubtful about them—that access agreements work well. Another important consideration for the commoners is that the county council will pay them a little money. I shall not say that too loud, because the county council does not have a great deal of money, but it will pay for access agreements.

Mr. Morley: I understand that the commoners originally supported the idea of a statutory right of access. Can my hon. Friend explain say why they have changed their minds during the Bill's passage?

Mr. Bennett: I am puzzled about that. One of the people who telephoned me today was a commoner. He told me that he thought access was a good idea, and that other commoners wanted it. He was trying to put the blame on some of the bigger landowners who have some rights to the common. He said that Bodmin was caught up in a national argument and that, because the ramblers and the Open Spaces Society argued that access should be granted, one or two other organisations had advised the commoners not to agree to an access agreement, as it might undermine their national stance.
It is disappointing that the commoners, having initially supported access agreements, have now backed off, and some would prefer not to have them. My evidence is that access agreements work and could benefit local people who would be getting a little money not just from the Government for using lower stocking levels, but from the county council for letting people walk on the land.
I now turn to de facto access. Local people have told me that there is no problem because they can get on to the land. I have mentioned the problem in the Arans, where there was de facto access but it was revoked. In most parts of the country, if one wants to get access to land, one can use rights of way or access agreements. One can also say to the landowner: "Do you mind if I walk across your land?" I have often asked the farmer whether I could walk through his farmland either to go for a walk or to look at a historic or archaeological site. Farmers very rarely refuse access.

Mr. Terry Lewis: They set the dogs on you.

Mr. Bennett: I know that there can be problems and that people are not always made welcome, but my experience is that, if one asks nicely, one is normally allowed onto the land.
What happens on Bodmin moor? Presumably one would have to find one of the commoners and say, "Please may I go on to the land?" and one would then be able to walk across it. The commoner I spoke to today— Mr. Budge—told me that he was not quite sure. He said, "I always tell people that everyone goes on anyway, so you don't need permission, but I do not think that I have the right to give permission, because I am not the landowner. I have only commoners' grazing rights."
So who is entitled to grant people permission to go on to the commons? Mr. Budge, as a commoner, could ask me to look at his stock, round it up or do something else, and I would then have the right to be on the common, but if I just wanted to have a look at it, I am not quite sure how the de facto right would work.

Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend would have to ask Prince Charles.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend may wish to lead me in that direction, but I know nothing about Prince Charles, and would not wish to involve him in the debate.

Mr. Skinner: Does not Prince Charles own part of Cornwall?

Mr. Bennett: I am sure that, if my hon. Friend catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he will be able to develop that argument further.

Mr. Tyler: Did the hon. Gentleman say that the commoner who had been in touch with him today was a certain Mr. Budge? If so, perhaps I should let him know that Mr. Budge is no longer a commoner, as he no longer farms on the edge of the moor, so he no longer has any common rights. He may also have a somewhat different agenda from that of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bennett: I shall not go into detail. Mr. Budge raised a particular point with me. If the hon. Gentleman disputes it, I understand that the commoners originally agreed to access. If the hon. Gentleman is denying that the commoners originally agreed to access, I shall gladly give way to him. As I understand it—I think that Mr. Budge was perfectly correct on that point—the commoners agreed to access when the legislation was first proposed. If that is wrong, will the hon. Gentleman please intervene?

Mr. Tyler: It is perfectly true that everybody tried to find acceptable terms in which the access problem could be resolved. I and the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall did our very best to find such terms. We found it impossible to approve and support appropriate terms for the Bill. If we could have done so, we would have been delighted, but it became increasingly apparent that such terms were appropriate only for national legislation, and not for a private Bill.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman attended the negotiations last week, when he said that the county council—in good faith—would seek an access agreement. He cannot have it both ways. Either an access agreement is impossible because the commoners cannot agree among themselves, or we can negotiate an access agreement. We should put that idea to the test: let us delay the Bill's progress and put the access agreement in place. The Bill could then race through the House. The hon. Gentleman has said that the county council will use its best endeavours to reach an agreement. That is one approach.

Mr. Skinner: Is it a Liberal county council?

Mr. Bennett: It is a funny county council—I think that there is no overall control. However, I do not wish to go

into the composition of the council. I want to concentrate on the question of access, and particularly the problem of guaranteeing de facto access.
As the Bill stands currently, the commoners will have the right to regulate access. I approve of that provision. If a part of the moor is being damaged through over-use, or should be burnt in line with heather management, it is logical that people should be denied access to that area for a specified period. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has powers to prevent people from entering certain areas where diseased animals have been discovered. It would be logical for an access agreement to contain the right to suspend access in certain circumstances, such as in the event of a fire risk.
However, the rules regarding fire are quite odd. The Environment Committee found that almost all the access agreements in the peak district prevented people from roaming on the moors when the fire risk was high. However, the attitude in the New Forest is to allow as many people as possible on to the moor when the fire risk is high, so that they may give an early warning of fire and almost certainly assist with fighting it. An access agreement should address such issues, and I argue strongly that we should try to put such an agreement in place.
Some of the blame must lie with the Government. A proposal emerged from the Common Land Forum to deal with commons up and down the country. The Government were so impressed with the forum's recommendations that they made a manifesto commitment in 1987—which I think was repeated in 1992—to legislate in that area. That legislation would involve recognising grazing rights and allowing access to commons. Sadly, the Moorland Society nobbled the Government. The big landed interests—I suppose that they are still the Tory grandees—said no, and the Government stupidly gave in to them.
As a result of that backdown, there have been continuing problems with our commons. It is interesting to note that the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association have begun to realise that it is not in the interests of those who work on the land to keep others out. I do not approve totally of the Country Landowners Association publication that was released today, but it is now talking about encouraging access. It says that access should be negotiated locally.
In the case of Bodmin moor, access could be negotiated locally. If organisations such as the Country Landowners Association and the NFU want to argue that access should be negotiated locally and agreed on the basis of existing access provisions in earlier legislation, they must demonstrate that the agreements are working. If we cannot have access agreements on Bodmin moor, perhaps we should take a different approach—for example, right to roam legislation, or perhaps a walkers charter. That approach would have many advantages, because it gives the walker rights and responsibilities. Anyone who cares about the countryside would favour that approach.
I do not like going into the countryside carrying a pair or wirecutters in my back pocket to cut barbed wire that has been placed across a footpath. I do not like having to telephone or write to a county council to report obstructions on footpaths. I do not roam the countryside looking for conflict: I go to the country to enjoy the peace and quiet. That enjoyment is spoilt by arguments and problems about access.
I want to see a way out. Nothing would please me more than if the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the Moorland Society were to rush to put access agreements in place across the country in the next 12 or 18 months. Perhaps that would reduce the need for right to roam legislation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will introduce right to roam legislation as a Minister in the next Labour Government. However, both the NFU and the Country Landowners Association say that they support this Bill. Therefore, they must demonstrate that access agreements can be successfully negotiated locally.
The next question is, who will serve on the Bodmin moor commoners council? I understand that the Bill contains a fairly complicated procedure for appointing people to that council.

Mr. Flynn: Is it a quango?

Mr. Bennett: I suppose it is. However, its members are also shareholders—those who have grazing rights have a right to participate in the election of commoners who can serve on the council. We should ensure that the access groups are represented on that body, and have a veto over restrictions on access.
The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks) said that I would approve of some of the powers to restrict activities on the moors. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and I would like to stop four-wheel-drive vehicles with bull bars entering moorland. However, if we deny access to four-wheel-drive vehicles, to people on mountain bikes, trail riders and so on, how will we differentiate between those powers and the powers that allow access to people on foot? What about those people who enter moorland on foot with the intention of engaging in other activities, such as hang-gliding, para-gliding and so on? We should have in place a management access agreement in order to regulate those activities properly.
There is another question regarding archaeological sites. There are traces of early civilisations all over Bodmin moor, and people like to visit those sites. Some of the sites and structures have been nicely preserved by English Heritage. But it can be more interesting and more fun wondering whether a shape on the ground is a geological formation or is the result of human activity— one can use one's imagination.
Currently, there is no legislative provision to allow people to visit such sites, and I should like to see those rights enshrined in access agreements. However, we must again consider regulation. Many people who like to visit historical sites take their metal detectors. I have seen them on many occasions: as soon as something sets off their metal detector, they begin scrabbling around and digging to try to find the object. Usually they find a penny or 10p piece that another metal detectorist dropped earlier; but on some occasions they start to dig things up. I certainly do not approve of people just digging around on those sites. It should be properly regulated.
I hope that commoners will have the opportunity to represent all those interests and that they can put into some access agreement a balance between all those different groups.
I should like to return to the point I made at the beginning of my speech. There is an opportunity for a deal that satisfies everyone—a statutory access agreement in the current legislation that would be set up by the county council on a voluntary basis, which would then allow quick passage by means of this Bill, and let the graziers get the management in place.
I think that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall suggested that it is now five years since he first went to Ministers to plead for this to be designated an environmentally sensitive area. I can understand how commoners who are on low incomes are aggrieved that it has taken so long, but I must tell him that, if the matter continues to drag on through the House for any length of time, it will be because of the failure of those same commoners to agree an access provision.
I hope that, even at this late stage, people who are promoting the Bill will appreciate that there will be sustained opposition to it unless concessions are achieved. Sustained opposition will cost the promoters money and will delay the Bill. For all those reasons, I hope that we can get an undertaking very quickly that will satisfy the petitioners—the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society—that we can have an access agreement, and that the commoners can get the proper management that they deserve. Before the Bill progresses very much further, I hope that some sort of agreement can be reached.

Mr. Paul Flynn: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who speaks with such authority on this matter. I think that all hon. Members enjoyed his succinct speech. I hope to be equally brief.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned the private Bill procedure. There was a young hon. Member who said that the private Bill procedure is archaic, slow, inefficient and long overdue for reform. His name was Benjamin Disraeli. There have been some changes in the private Bill procedure since then, but much of his criticism is still valid.
Many hon. Members will remember the painful experience of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, which was in the House for longer than the first world war lasted. I think that it occupied more of the House's time than any Bill since the repeal of the Corn Laws. I do not say that as any form of threat to anyone. I remember a time during that Bill's passage when I was in the Chamber at 5 am, passionately advocating the cause of retaining the habitat of the barking Grangetown rat. Of course many hon. Members were talking on behalf of other forms of wildlife, such as the bird. There is a Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, but no society for the protection of the barking Grangetown rat, and, if there were, it certainly would not be a royal society.
There is a concentration on certain attractive forms of wildlife and not on those equally rare forms of wildlife to which we should pay attention.

Mr. Morley: I remember very well those debates late through the night. I inform my hon. Friend that the black rat that he mentioned is a protected species.

Mr. Flynn: I am delighted to hear that, but the species that I mentioned is fictitious. I mentioned it in the early


hours of the morning to make a point about the attempts that were being made to protect creatures that were reduced to their last 28 billion in the world. I should return to speaking about the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I call on the hon. Gentleman to tell us something about the Bill.

Mr. Flynn: I shall not try your patience any longer, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We must examine the Bill and consider the concession that is sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish. All hon. Members would say that we are in favour of the Bill's general purpose, but that we have misgivings about what is absent from it—the guarantee of rights of access to all those who use this wild and beautiful part of the country, which is part of our heritage.
I was enthusiastic about the suggestion that access must be denied to those who abuse our countryside with noise pollution, light pollution and—the worst pollution we have seen in recent years—the barbarous, four-by-four vehicles that have caused so much damage to our green lanes and countryside. They should be denied access. There is a particular mindset among the people who buy those vehicles. They usually had Tonka cars when they were children, and they grow up to want those great, chunky, inefficient and unsafe vehicles. Their effect on green lanes is disastrous, leaving huge ruts and great damage. Some roads in Wales have suffered greater damage in the past 20 years because of four-by-fours than they have suffered since they were built by the Romans. One of those is Sarn Helen.
One may ask why a Welsh Member of Parliament should have a keen interest in this Bill. We see the area as part of our common heritage of national life, but I also have a particular interest in the relationship between Wales and Cornwall. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks) used two words of the Cornish language: Mebyon Kernow. I remember tabling a question about the future of Brythonic languages. Many of the names on Bodmin are Brythonic names. The Department inquired what I was talking about. I made it clear that I wanted an answer about the Cornish language, and the answer was given to me by the Secretary of State for Wales.
I do not know whether the Government have some secret agenda to annex Cornwall to Wales and to reunite those two ancient nations, which were once united but, unfortunately, divided by the immigration of Saxons, who came to these islands and divided those two groups of people. In Wales there is a legitimate interest in those groups.
A great amount of play has been made about what is claimed to be the Bill's universal support, but that is not so according to the information that I have. I know that the Ramblers Association has complained and has many misgivings about it. Members of that organisation have told me that they know of no local access bodies that agree with the view that the Bill is without fault. The most prominent access bodies are of course the Ramblers Association, the Open Spaces Society and the splendid Youth Hostels Association. They have all petitioned against the Bill. To suggest that the local branches of

those organisations are somehow in favour of it is, as I understand it, untrue. I hope that that point will be answered by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall.

Mr. Hicks: May I clarify my remarks, which are on the record? I said that no local amenity or recreational groups, organisations or societies, to the best of my knowledge, have expressed their opposition to the provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Flynn: I should be happy to improve the hon. Gentleman's knowledge, because my understanding is that there are local branches of those organisations and that it is entirely misleading to suggest that they disagree with their national organisations in any way.
We are opposed to access to all parts of the moors by those who would damage them, but other groups that have a keen interest in the flora and fauna of Bodmin moors should have open access to them. For the sake of brevity, I shall mention only one such organisation—the Butterfly Conservation Society. Earlier this year, I had the great privilege to present the prizes in its annual photograph competition. The taking of such photographs requires generous access to the habitats of the butterflies and moths that are part of the life of Bodmin moor.
We must not treat this as a matter of no importance. We all love butterflies, which are beautiful, living jewels of nature: we love the enormous variety and subtlety of their colours, and note the differences that occur from one area to another only a few miles away. Butterflies are important for another reason, however, which makes them the subject of considerable study: they are a prime indicator of biodiversity. Any reduction in the number of species is an accurate indicator of the extent to which biodiversity is deteriorating, or becoming less important.
Certain groups are very well protected by the Bill. Clause 16 contains firm guarantees, stating:
Subject to the provisions of this section (and without prejudice to the general law concerning the application of statutes to the Duchy of Cornwall), nothing in this Act shall prejudice any of the rights, powers, privileges or authority attaching to the possessions of, or exercisable by, the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall in relation to land belonging to the said Duchy and nothing in this Act shall apply to the said possessions or possessor by virtue of an interest in land belonging to the said Duchy without the consent specified in subsection (3) below.
There we have a copper-bottomed guarantee, which cannot possibly be breached, in favour of—whom? In favour of the person who received the income from the Duchy of Cornwall. We all know who that person is, and I do not want to break the rules of the House by identifying him. There is a strong case for saying that, given the extraordinary history of the land of the Duchy of Cornwall—the income from which now goes to just one person—that land actually belongs to the people of this country. Clause 16 gives an absolute guarantee that those rights will be protected.
The Bill goes on to say that certain other rights are protected. For instance, the protection of the trustees of the recreation ground of P. R. Blarney is enshrined in it. Clause 17 makes it clear that the commons and grounds of P. R. Blarney will be protected under what will become section 5, and there is no doubt that the draftsmen took the issues fully into account and were prepared to include the measure in the Bill. Why on earth will not the promoters agree to the modest request made by my hon.
Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish during long meetings? Why are not the small concessions that, it has been suggested, will be forthcoming tonight included in the Bill? Why should we not be given a chance to prove tonight that they will be made? I am sure that we all consider such a development desirable.

Dr. John Marek: I apologise for not being present during the first part of my hon. Friend's speech. I have read the Bill, however. May I make a plea? As the Bill is generally acceptable to the House, will my hon. Friend try to persuade the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks)—whom I respect—to establish whether an access agreement that is generally acceptable to the various parties could be negotiated? If that could be done, I think that the Bill could be passed in two minutes flat. That is a challenge; can the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall and others rise to it? Does my hon. Friend agree that this is the nub of the issue?

Mr. Flynn: I agree entirely. I am sure that many of us can think of other ways in which we could be using our time tonight. The Bill is important, but, as one who has not been involved in the negotiations, I sense that there is little space between the two sides.
It has been claimed that the Countryside Commission gave its blessing to the Bill, but in its most recent letter it expresses many serious misgivings. It speaks of a "strong preference": although it wants to continue to back the Bill, which deals with matters of some importance, it wants more attention to be given to public access, regarding that as one of the most important and accepted uses of Bodmin moor. In a letter to Cornwall county council, it says:
We regret that it has not been possible for you to achieve a negotiated settlement of the petitioners' concerns.
Its position has always been that it wants the Bill to succeed—as we all do—and it believes that
such a settlement would have assisted the passage of the Bill through Parliament.
I think that we would all agree with that.
Misgivings have also been expressed by the Ramblers Association, which represents a great many people. Its interests have not always been respected. The Country Landowners Association and the commoners have not always been friendly towards ramblers, and there is a continuous history going back to the beginning of the century—possibly beyond that—of ramblers having to fight for their rights of access against selfish landowners who have sought to restrict the access that we should all enjoy. The Ramblers Association has said that it believes that, if the Bill is passed, it could lead to a loss of access on the moors. That right of access should be enshrined in the Bill.
I do not know whether any of those who speak for the Bill's promoters are willing to grant us any extension, or any reaffirmation of what they are saying, or whether the matter must be left until the Committee stage—if that takes place in the near future. There is a suggestion, however, that the Bill goes against the long-held view that access to and management of common land should go hand in hand. That point was made in the 1958 report of the royal commission on common land, which we all remember so well. It was then endorsed by the Common

Land Forum in its 1986 report, which was signed, and has long been supported, by interests including the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the Association of County Councils, speaking with the support of Cornwall county council, and many others. The important point is that recreation and amenity organisations should support the two main principles. They should be part of the principles of the Common Land Forum and govern our use of the wonderful wild habitat in this countryside.
Bodmin moor has been preserved in its wild state while we have seen encroachments into other beautiful areas. It is the task of everyone in the House to ensure that the Bill does the best that it can for wild areas and the habitats of creatures, but there is no excuse for leaving out of the Bill the right of access to the moor for those with an interest in nature. The Bill could provide for that access to be regulated by the county council and others to protect the area sensibly, reasonably and practically. I urge the promoters to strengthen the right of access in the Bill.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I understand the concerns that have been expressed in the House today about the lack of agreement over the right to access in the Bill. I have listened to much of the debate, and I have read about the Bill, and it seems to me that—in the preliminary planning stages of the Bill—all concerned intended to settle the issue of access for recreational purposes to Bodmin moor at the same time as the other elements of the Bill, such as common grazing rights and the establishment of the commoners council. We support those interesting measures, but if there is a reluctance to include a small clause about access on the face of the Bill, we must conclude that the promoters and some landowners are deeply reluctant to allow sensible access agreements for Bodmin moor.
I decided to speak in the debate partly because the day before yesterday I participated in a re-enactment of the 1932 Abbey Brook mass trespass over Strines moor in my constituency. As a result of that, and as a result of many years of pressure, access was gained to one right of way across the moor, but the land was owned by the Fitzwilliam estates on one side of the right of way and by the Broomhead estates on the other. When 40 people re-enacted the Abbey Brook event on Sunday, I was struck by the disadvantages of having not an open access agreement covering the whole moor but only an access agreement covering the rights of way.

Mr. Bennett: I went to the Library today and looked carefully at the areas covered by the moor. The problem is that few of the historic rights of way were recorded. Local people thought that they could go where they wanted on the moor and that they did not have to stick to paths. Unfortunately, because the paths were not recorded as rights of way, there is only de facto access. As the Bill is now worded, the commoners could stop that access. There is the example of the Arans where de facto access existed for years, but suddenly people were restricted to one or two paths.

Mrs. Jackson: It is a further cause for concern if the powers that the Bill could give to the commoners council could be used to restrict even further the rights of way of people over the existing paths and tracks over Bodmin


moor. If access is officially restricted to one or two paths and access is denied to the general moorland, that puts more pressure on those paths and tracks which could then be more open to the damage caused by four-wheel-drive vehicles. If there is general access, hikers and walkers will use the moor more for recreational purposes and they will constitute a strong lobby to prevent four-wheel-drive vehicles or other noisy activities from taking over and destroying the peaceful environment of the moor.
When we discussed in the Select Committee the countryside leisure activities and the environmental damage that they could do, one of the issues that was raised time and again was that most problems could be solved and a satisfactory way forward could be found by careful management and negotiation and by obtaining agreement from all the bodies concerned.

Mr. Bennett: I agree with my hon. Friend, but does she accept that it is important to increase the areas to which people have access so that the crowds are spread out? One of the things that came out of the inquiry was the advantage of making more and more areas available for people to walk over.

Mrs. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I well remember the evidence that we received in the peak district, which is a heavily used open area with many conurbations around it. It was crucial to maximise the area to which people had a right of access and to ensure that there was good negotiation about who should be allowed to undertake their various leisure, agricultural and community pursuits. When the various bodies work in harmony, it is invariably possible to achieve a satisfactory and well managed way forward.

Mr. Skinner: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's last statement about getting all those people together. How on earth can one get together the Country Landowners Association, the fanners, the commoners and all the ordinary, run-of-the-mill people who demand a right of access? I have listened to the debate for the past hour and I think that what we have here is a classic case of market forces versus planning agreements. It looks to me as though we are not battling against something tiny: it is the old-fashioned battle between those with property and rights and the rest of the people who want access to this part of Bodmin moor. For the life of me, I cannot say that I am too keen on travelling there, but it is obvious that many others want to do so.

Mrs. Jackson: I suspect that there is some truth in my hon. Friend's point, but I also suspect that it is an oversimplification in this case. I was interested to read the letter from the Country Landowners Association suggesting that it is important to obtain environmentally sensitive area status for Bodmin moor—such status will be brought nearer by the Bill—partly because it
would encourage the conditions in which further voluntary access agreements could be reached"

Mr. Skinner: I would like to believe that, but I have just been reading a letter from the Ramblers Association which says that we should not believe everything in the letter from the Country Landowners Association because it is full of misleading statements. We all know what the crack is in this place: the Government are at it every day,

trying to gloss over what they are up to. I think that the letter from the Country Landowners Association needs to be read over and over again because it is a sprat to catch a mackerel—although not on Bodmin moor.

Mrs. Jackson: There is great deal of truth in what my hon. Friend says. Unless we have this agreement at this stage, before the Bill receives Royal Assent, we cannot guarantee that a small clique of landowners among the Common Land Forum will not put in place the restrictive measures which we have experienced over many years in the peak district in Yorkshire and Derbyshire.

Mr. Bennett: There is a suspicion that country landowners have a double function in this. We started off with agreement that there would be access, but between patches of common there are landowners' holdings, some of which are substantial. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned one. Landowners' interests are different from those of commoners. Landowners would like to have environmentally sensitive area status, but if commoners gain access to the commons, the logic is that they can gain access to the big landowners' land by the side of them. I suspect that that is where the country landowners, among others, started to change their attitude from supporting access to saying, "Hang on a minute—if we give access to the common, we shall have to give it on surrounding land."

Mrs. Jackson: I suspect that my hon. Friend may be right. I do not want to keep harking back to last Sunday, but on Strines moor in my constituency the large landowner, Fitzwilliam estates, which has owned that moor for generations and which has been so stubborn that it will not give an inch—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is about Bodmin moor, not the hon. Lady's constituency.

Mrs. Jackson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was just that larger landowners were mentioned and I was making a point about my experience of them and their possible intentions in relation to Bodmin moor.

Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend has mentioned large landowners. I think that she has studied clause 16, referring to allegedly the largest landowner in Cornwall: he owns the Duchy of Cornwall. My hon. Friend will notice that the Bill has the normal preamble referring to the Royal Assent that it will need. As we know, that is on all Bills. It is done in the name of Her Majesty, according to our unwritten constitution.

Mr. Skinner: What if the Queen does not give Royal Assent?

Mr. Flynn: Indeed. There might be unforeseen circumstances. But is there not a conflict of financial interest here? We have just had Lord Nolan's recommendation on declarations of financial interest. Is it inconceivable, as there is a family connection between the sovereign and the person who has the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was all very interesting, but it was a very long intervention.

Mrs. Jackson: That was an interesting intervention, but it perhaps stresses only my general point: the crux of the


issue is that, if a negotiated settlement about an access agreement were in the Bill, we would not be debating it at such length as all parties would be agreed.
I was especially interested in the letter on this issue from the Countryside Commission, which is financed with Government grants. Dated 10 February 1995, the letter said:
We regret that it has not been possible for you to achieve a negotiated settlement of the petitioners' concerns. Our position has always been that we want this Bill to succeed"—
which the Opposition want as well—
and we believe that such a settlement would have assisted the passage of the Bill through Parliament.
That is obviously true. If there had not been an attempt in the House of Lords to rule out the inclusion in the Bill of clear access provision, there would be no problem.
I am further concerned that there are not sufficient safeguards to ensure the establishment of rights of access for recreation through the commoners council. Clause 5 covers access to leisure but does not mention or specify rights of access of ramblers, walkers and people who want to enjoy the open countryside or go off the beaten track to enjoy the very special wildlife and vegetation that I am sure one can find on Bodmin moor.

Mr. Skinner: I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) talk about the council. When he was asked whether it was a quango, he said that it was not quite, but sort of. I want to know exactly how the council will be formed. Will people be nominated? Will there be a lot of patronage? Will there be wealthy people on it per se? Will some people be elected, and if so, will the elections be first past the post, the Liberal Democrats' proportional representation system, or what? My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who is well versed in such matters, did not give the proper information. Can my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) shed any light on the matter?

Mrs. Jackson: My understanding is that the commoners council will comprise people who have an interest in grazing, farming or otherwise using parts of Bodmin moor. If the sponsors of the Bill have any further information, I am sure that they would want to explain the matter.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that the moor consists of parcels of land in what most people would call Bodmin moor, the physical area? For each parcel of land, selective groups of people have commoners' rights which go back to the middle ages. The intervening bits of land were taken away by the Enclosure Acts. Anybody who has a right to use the common for grazing—I think that there are other rights, but I am not absolutely certain—is entitled to elect representatives. One of the people who was complaining about the Bill explained to me that the process was not particularly democratic. I can understand the argument that one piece of land might have two representatives and another might have three and that, like parliamentary constituencies, it is very difficult to establish fairness between—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an awfully interesting point, but the hon. Gentleman is taking a long time to explain it.

Mrs. Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). As what one might call the grazing industry reorganises itself, the commoners council could easily become one, two or at the most three people over a number of years. The same people might therefore be involved in different pockets of land and the crucial issue of access would again be determined by a very small number of people who have grazing interests on the common areas of Bodmin moor. That would concern us all.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady admit that there is a perfectly good footpath network throughout the moor? Is she merely rehearsing arguments for a wider right to roam over the whole of the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber while we have been discussing the paucity of rights of way over Bodmin moor that are shown on maps. The danger is that even the existing footpaths, which are few and far enough between, may be affected by the Bill.

Mr. Bennett: As I explained before the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) came into the Chamber, I looked at the Ordnance Survey maps of Bodmin moor in preparation for the debate and was disappointed to find few rights of way recorded. I counted 16 ancient monuments and other archaeological sites on the map, none of which was linked to a public footpath. As I asked earlier, how does one get permission to look at those sites if there is no one with the right to say that one can go there?

Mrs. Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), too, will be aware that ancient monuments in open country are rarely close to public footpaths. My father liked to look at archaeological remains, including those on Bodmin moor, and probably the first and last time that I went rambling in that area was as a fairly small child looking for archaeological sites. I do not remember their ever being close to public footpaths.
As we were saying earlier, such leisure activities are of interest only to a minority. There are not millions of people desperate to explore every archaeological site and trace of ancient history on Bodmin moor, or on any other moor. As has been argued through the ages, and certainly here today, an access agreement for areas of open country such as moorland or woodland—by no means across the whole country, as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury suggested—would enable the relatively small number of people who want to indulge in such recreations, or to make academic studies, to do so without having to approach a rather nebulous body such as a commoners council, from which it might be difficult to get permission.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, the Opposition do not suggest that landowners and farmers are unreasonable people—perhaps one of us might, but my hon. Friend the


Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not suggesting any such thing at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish described how in his experience, if farmers are approached nicely for permission to walk across land and look at something that one finds interesting, there is usually no problem.

Mr. Bennett: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that most people who work with their hands are proud of their skills. Most working farmers are proud of the land that they till and look after, and they are pleased to let other people go on to it. The problem arises with some of the people who own land but never do a day's work on it. They often want to keep people out so that they can use the land occasionally for shooting or some other such activity.

Mrs. Jackson: I agree. I do not know whether that now happens on Bodmin moor, but to speed the progress of the legislation through the House, all we ask is that an access agreement be negotiated with all the parties so as to satisfy the petitioners from the Ramblers Association and the other organisations that have petitioned against the Bill. That is a small problem, and an easy one to solve. Once it has been solved, we can then allow this excellent Bill to go forward through the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. John Gunnell.

Mr. John Gunnell: rose—

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has only just come in.

Mr. Gunnell: I was going to start by referring to that matter. I apologise to the House for being a late entrant to the Chamber for the debate, although I have watched some of it on the screen in my room. I have thus heard speeches from some of the hon. Members who are sitting near me now.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the arguments regarding hon. Members watching debates in their rooms is that no one would come into the Chamber? Does he agree—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must get on to the Bill.

Mr. Gunnell: My hon. Friend is correct. The availability of television broadcasts of the Chamber debates can have two effects. It can make Members lazy, but it can make people realise that an issue is important.

Mr. Skinner: There is nothing wrong with watching "Brookside" on the other channel.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill, and the hon. Gentleman should get back to that subject.

Mr. Gunnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have not managed to get on to the Bill yet. My connection with Cornwall is as a tourist, and it is clear that tourism

is an important aspect of the Cornish economy. Any members of Cornwall county council who are listening will accept that it is important that Cornwall gets its share of the tourist industry. As someone who is in favour of as much public access as possible, I thought it important to speak in the debate. That is my direct connection with Cornwall. I have no relatives in the area.
Tourists are interested in access, and some people will go to the moorlands because it gives them an opportunity to see a particular kind of habitat. They may, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), have a particular interest in archaeological sites. But others want to visit Bodmin moor to get away from things. Those people's views are represented by various organisations, whose briefings I have read since I became interested in the Bill.
The interests of landowners and farmers are represented on one side, and the interests of ramblers on the other. The Countryside Commission seems to represent one side of the argument, but if one looks carefully at its letter, one realises that it is on the other side. The letter has been referred to in the debate, and it is not necessary to quote from it again.
The Country Landowners Association and the farmers obviously have legitimate interests in the land, but they are not the only people with an interest. Judging by the words and works of the Countryside Commission, access to the countryside and to this particular stretch of countryside is important to people. I submit that it is also an important aspect of tourism. Most people go to Cornwall to visit the coast. The coastline is an area of outstanding natural beauty, but many also welcome the opportunity of a mixed holiday that enables them to visit the moor.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that the coastal paths in Cornwall are extremely attractive but very popular? Many people go to the countryside for peace and quiet and to look at wildlife. One does not see much wildlife when there are hordes of people. The attraction of Bodmin moor is that there are far fewer people there. So, if one wants a balanced holiday, it is good to spend some time on the moor, if one gets good weather, and some time on the coastal footpath.

Mr. Gunnell: I entirely agree. I come from Yorkshire and my family home is near open countryside, so I appreciate being able to walk there. I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker has the same view of access to the countryside in Yorkshire as is being presented—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I welcome walking on Bodmin moor, which is what we are talking about.

Mr. Gunnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is important none the less to point out that the way in which we view the matter depends to some extent on our upbringing.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we come from Yorkshire, we understand that boggy moors have attractions, contrary to some of the sedentary comments that I have heard? Moors that may on the face of it seem boggy have significant attractions and a wealth of wildlife and interest.

Mr. Gunnell: That is correct and there are people who study particular habitats and who will particularly want to


see the type of habitat available on the moor—to see the flora and creatures that live there—which is of particular interest to them.

Mr. Skinner: While my hon. Friend is discussing the Bill, he should bear in mind that he represents a chunk of a city. I sometimes get the impression that city people lord it over people who live in rural areas. I was born and bred in a rural area—in most of the mining areas, the pit villages are surrounded by loads of fields, as Mr. Deputy Speaker will know—so I know. One of the problems that we always face with such Bills is that we can give the impression that people from the city somehow know best.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying hard, but I doubt whether there are any coal mines on Bodmin moor.

Mr. Gunnell: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is correct.
The availability of open countryside is extremely important to my constituents, who are very concerned because their open land is being spoiled by opencast mining. Six opencast sites have been agreed in my constituency, but I can see that I am making you restless, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend is too modest to mention the fact that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) are distinguished photographers and need access to beautiful sites to take the sort of wonderful photographs that are now on exhibition in Bradford. Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us how access is important to him to take those wonderful pictures.

Mr. Gunnell: That is true. The law in many other countries allows better access than does ours and would not let a collaboration of landowners and farmers—and many people belong to organisations of both and so have two votes, so to speak—to cut off public access.
I think of the years that I spent in the United States, which I may say to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) were important to me for taking the photographs that he mentioned. I spent time in the national parks there. Access to them in the United States is different from that which we are discussing. It is almost open access. One cannot advertise in such areas. People have the freedom to go where they want, which is limited only by national park rangers who can decide whether an area is unsafe because of—

Mr. Skinner: Guns?

Mr. Gunnell: It is not because of guns. No guns are permitted.

Mr. Skinner: What, in America?

Mr. Gunnell: Guns are permitted in America but not in national parks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is testing my patience. We are debating the Bodmin Moor

Commons Bill. He must confine his remarks to its contents. If he does not, I shall have to ask him to take his seat.

Mr. Gunnell: I was brought up in Birmingham, so I am fortunate that my interest in the countryside was stimulated when I was an evacuee during the war when my aunt used to take me into the country.

Mr. Peter Luff: I have walked regularly on Bodmin moor with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and I have a great love for it. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour party will never be forgiven in Cornwall for its disgraceful tactics in trying to talk out and destroy this important Bill? He should remember what he is doing to the Labour party's reputation in Cornwall.

Mr. Gunnell: I am given to understand that I have been in the Chamber for longer than the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff). I have apologised to the House for not having been able to be here at the start of the debate.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that our whole argument is that if the Bill's promoters give us an access agreement, they can have the Bill quickly? The people in Cornwall who want regulation must accept a balance between control of the moor and control of access to it. It is they who are delaying the Bill. We will have petitions and arguments on Report. Give us the access agreement and get on with it.

Mr. Gunnell: I thank my hon. Friend for making that clear. The Bill's position on access is more restrictive than hon. Members have been led to believe. Some clauses have been taken out from the Bill as originally drafted. A Bill that it was thought would give access to the public for rambling has been reduced.

Mr. Morley: I do not think that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) was here at the start of the debate or he would have heard that the Opposition support the principle of the Bill. He knows that concern has been expressed on both sides of the House about access.

Mr. Gunnell: When a tourist visitor intervenes in a measure that is specifically geared to an area, he enters a controversy. I should say why I am prepared to speak tonight. It is because I believe that public access is very important.
I believe that that issue has not yet been determined. Many people would share the view of hon. Members like myself, who have spoken in the debate, that access to that land should be as open as possible, and that at the moment the proposals in the Bill are too restrictive. As I understand it, it is also agreed that Cornwall county council did consider the issue of more open access.

Mr. Skinner: It should be placed on the record—I ask my hon. Friend to comment—that, earlier in the debate, the Tory hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) made a speech opposing the proposals in the Bill, and other Back Benchers have done the same.
What I am saying has nothing to do with the Labour party's position. Some of us, having read the Ramblers Association document, have taken the view that it has made a strong case, and the Ramblers Association has people in every constituency, including Worcester.
We are not here to try to prevent someone getting decent rights; we are here to ensure that everyone gets rights, and by a small amendment and an access agreement we can get satisfaction for everyone. Let us make it absolutely clear that that is what the business is about tonight.

Mr. Gunnell: I thank my hon. Friend for describing the position so clearly. I had recognised that to be the position. There is no intention of preventing the Bill's passage entirely. It is recognised that there is much in it of value. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] No; I will not. I understand that, in order for that to happen, and in order for both parties to be satisfied—especially those who want a greater degree of access—there must be further discussion. There must be a proper—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I must say that he is getting very near to tedious repetition. I have heard it time and again, so we are getting pretty nearly there.

Mr. Gunnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I certainly would not want to be guilty of repetition of the type that you have described. Admittedly, only one important issue in the Bill concerns Members, so there is a certain amount of repetitiveness in what hon. Members are saying. They are saying that, currently, access is too limited and in the control of too few people.
It is uncertain how many people serve on the commoners council, how they get there, and who determines how long they keep their places; so one does not know whether the matter will ever be reopened if the Bill passes as it is structured. We do not know whether the opportunity for public access that people strongly feel is necessary, and which many people feel is necessary, will be available if we allow the Bill to pass in its current form. There is no intention, as I understand it—

Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that, if he had heard—he probably did hear part of it on the teleprompter or whatever—the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), he would have known that he, with all his views and knowledge about rambling, felt that we were close to an agreement? We are talking about something that will last for a terribly long time, and it is important that we get it right. It is well known that, in private Bill procedure in the House of Commons, the way to get things done properly is to hold the Bill up and have further discussions. There are countless examples of private Bills that have emerged better as a result of long discussions and the chance to get people round a table again.

Mr. Gunnell: I thank my hon. Friend for explaining that, as the hon. Member for Worcester may agree, the process in which we are engaged is not obstructive but constructive. To make possible the constructive dialogue that I believe will follow tonight's debate, there must be the necessity for it, and that necessity will be found only if the Bill as it stands is not accepted by the House. There will follow negotiations that will result, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, in a better Bill.
I think it right to play my part in such a cause. Access is important and should be determined democratically. It may be argued that Cornwall county council is a

democratic body. I used to be the leader of West Yorkshire council. I dare say it was not our countryside policy that led to our abolition; that resulted, rather, from our radical view on certain other matters—notably public transport. The Peaks park, a national park, was part of our area. We believed in providing access to the public—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman continues to test my patience. We are talking not about west Yorkshire but about Bodmin moor. I would be obliged if he confined his remarks to the latter. I do not want to have to interrupt again.

Mr. Gunnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This Bill is but one of many such Bills. The restrictions placed on access to Bodmin may reverberate around the country in the form of other private Bills—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That may be so, but we are still debating the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill.

Mr. Gunnell: I might just add—

Mr. Bennett: Some of the local bodies say that they do not want a local agreement—there must be a national agreement. But national bodies such as the Country Landowners Association and the NFU say that they do not want a national agreement—agreements must be reached case by case. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the problem? Does not his west Yorkshire experience show that in this case we have to go for local negotiations?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made my ruling. I am fully aware of the hon. Gentleman's familiarity with west Yorkshire; I just wish he understood this Bill a little better.

Mr. Gunnell: I shall speak just a little longer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will give you no cause to tell me to be quiet again.
I believe it possible to reach a local agreement if the Bill in its current form is rejected. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would understand that if the land concerned were on your doorstep.

Mr. Hicks: While the hon. Gentleman was watching his television monitor in his office, he may have missed the reference to assurances that have been given by Cornwall county council, the promoter of the Bill. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) confirmed earlier that, following discussion, the county council has agreed to seek a voluntary access agreement with the landowners and commoners of Bodmin moor commons. Furthermore, the county council, as of today's date, is setting the necessary machinery in motion forthwith. That is precisely what Opposition Members have been asking for during this debate, especially during the past hour or so. The positive dialogue for which the hon. Gentleman has called will be denied, as will access agreements, if the Bill fails to obtain a Second Reading this evening.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must reply to the intervention.

Mr. Gunnell: I was about to do so. There is a great difference between a provision appearing on the face of


the Bill and a commitment that an issue will be addressed in future. I have served on a number of Standing Committees in which hon. Members raised important matters that were not mentioned in the Bill concerned. Ministers were sympathetic and suggested that those issues could be dealt with later. In practice, however, it is rare that those issues are addressed.
It is important that certain issues appear on the face of the Bill. I hope that the discussions that I believe will take place will make the Bill more positive. I am also concerned about the cost to the county council of promoting the Bill.

Mr. Tyler: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could contemplate the consequences if the Bill does not get its Second Reading here in the House. There will then be no discussion and no access agreement on Bodmin moor. If the hon. Gentleman had been here earlier, he would know that I am a regular walker on Bodmin moor. If there is no Second Reading, there will be no discussion and no access agreement.

Mr. Gunnell: I would be surprised if the county council wanted the Bill to fall.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that one or two of us have dealt with many private Bills in the past— sadly, too many? We all know that if the Bill does not complete its Second Reading tonight, it can be scheduled for Second Reading on another day. If it is unopposed, it will go through on the nod at 2.30 pm. If we can achieve an agreement, the whole process will be extremely quick.

Mr. Gunnell: I am aware that my hon. Friend has worked on a number of private Bills in order to improve them from the public perspective. I know that he has been successful in a number of cases.
I assume that Cornwall county council is not prepared to bury its head in the sand. Promoting a Bill costs a considerable amount of money as I am well aware, having taken the Leeds Supertram Act 1993 through the House. I took over the responsibility for that measure from my predecessor, now Lord Merlyn-Rees.
I recognise the there are important costs associated with promoting such a Bill. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made it absolutely clear that the matter can be corrected in a very simple manner, provided that there is access. As there was access when the Bill was originally conceived, it would seem to me that Cornwall county council does not wish to stop access to Bodmin moor. I accept from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that there is a degree of access already, but that access appears to be put at risk by the framework of the Bill. As do not know the constitution of the body on which it depends, we do not know how the matter will be handled. I accept that Cornwall county council has put the Bill before us with the best of intentions. It is not the intention of hon. Members to thwart that Bill and to make it spend the money again.
We intend to put in place a satisfactory access agreement. I understand that the present agreement is in the hands of people to whom the House, and perhaps

Cornwall county council, cannot dictate. Therefore, it is important that proper access provisions should appear on the face of the Bill. We should participate in a constructive process and reach an agreement that makes good sense to the local people and to the tourists who visit Cornwall.
In my contribution tonight, I have tried to keep closely to the remit of Bodmin moor as we are considering a private Bill. I am sure that all hon. Members in the Chamber recognise the issue on which the debate is based. I am anxious that there should be legislation that allows people appropriate access to the moor and that those provisions should appear on the face of the Bill. We should not allow another body to determine that when we do not know what its intentions might be. Perhaps it would limit access and the hon. Member for North Cornwall would not be able to continue his walks across the moor.
Therefore, I do not believe that I have been part of an obstructive process. As a consequence of our debating the legislation tonight, the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks) has a distinguished record in this area—and I have been unable to attend a cricket dinner.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that the Labour party is involved in a filibuster in order to prevent the Bill's Second Reading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will decide what is in order in the House.

Mr. Gunnell: This will be the last time that I stand up as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I have made my point clearly: I do not regard this process as obstructive. I do not believe that it is inimical to the interests of the county council which represents the people of Cornwall and is responsible for the local economy. Perhaps we have upset certain country landowners and some farmers who believe that their land should be inviolate. I believe that we should spell out what sort of access is permissible.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is important to remember that, apart from the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) who spoke in support of the Bill, one of the main contributions to the debate came from the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). We may not agree about some issues, but tonight he made it abundantly clear that he opposed the Bill in principle because it is not good enough. It is not a party political issue. Another major contribution to the debate came from my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Hon. Members who have been here for some time know that my hon. Friend understands the British countryside better than anyone.

Mr. Hicks rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 19.

Division No. 130]
[9.58 pm






AYES


Alexander, Richard
Forman, Nigel


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Gale, Roger


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gallie, Phil


Bates, Michael
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Booth, Hartley
Garnier, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowis, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brandreth, Gyles
Harvey, Nick


Bright, Sir Graham
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Heald, Oliver


Burns, Simon
Hendry, Charles


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Robert


Butcher, John
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jenkin, Bernard


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Carrington, Matthew
Kirkhope, Timothy


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Knapman, Roger


Chidgey, David
Knox, Sir David


Clappison, James
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Congdon, David
Legg, Barry


Conway, Derek
Lidington, David


Dafis, Cynog
MacKay, Andrew


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Day, Stephen
Malone, Gerald


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Marlow, Tony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mates, Michael


Dover, Den
Merchant, Piers


Duncan, Alan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Neubert, Sir Michael


Elletson, Harold
Nicholls, Patrick


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Norris, Steve


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Oppenheim, Phillip





Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tracey, Richard


Pearson, Ian
Tredinnick, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tyler, Paul


Richards, Rod
Walden, George


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waller, Gary


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waterson, Nigel


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wells, Bowen


Spink, Dr Robert
Whittingdale, John


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wilkinson, John


Stephen, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Streeter, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Sweeney, Walter



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Mr. Peter Luff and


Thomason, Roy
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.




NOES


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Bayley, Hugh
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Bennett, Andrew F
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Callaghan, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Loyden, Eddie



McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Pickthall, Colin


Flynn, Paul
Pike, Peter L


Gunnell, John



Hanson, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Hoyle, Doug
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mr. Terry Lewis.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put accordingly, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Defamation Bill [Lords], the Police Bill [Lords], the Industrial Tribunals Bill [Lords] and the Employment Rights Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Defamation Bill [Lords]

Postponed proceeding on Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, resumed

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am pleased that, after that ramble across Bodmin moor, during which the beast of Bolsover was temporarily transmogrified into the beast of Bodmin, I can resume the speech that was interrupted at 7 o'clock. At that time, if my memory serves, I was talking about clause 14 and the Hoffmann amendment. Lord Hoffmann himself did not vote for his amendment and I suggest that it went further than is necessary to achieve the end desired by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) in his defamation action against The Guardian and by any other hon. Members who might find themselves in a similar position because of parliamentary privilege.
I suggest that there is an alternative way to deal with the problem, which would not have the effect of handing over decisions on privilege from the House itself to individual Members of the House. The Hoffmann amendment should be altered in due course so that the decision-making power on the waiving of privilege would be held by the Committee dealing with privilege in each House of Parliament.
I propose to make some comments on other clauses, and I would be grateful for the Parliamentary Secretary's observations, either tonight or in due course. Clauses 5 and 6 deal with time limits and we have heard several submissions to the House on that subject, including one from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) who, as we have discovered, is the in-House expert in such matters. He said that a 12-month time limit may be too short—I respectfully agree—and he gave the good example of a potential plaintiff who has to await the end of police disciplinary proceedings. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that if we consider the law on the extension of time for the service of writs in personal injury actions, we see that the law can be unpredictable. It would be far better to have a clear statutory definition of the time limit, but it should be longer than one year.
In any event, if the time limit is reduced to one year, it will create an anomaly between the law of England and Wales and the law of Scotland. I am glad to see that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) in his place because he has experience of such matters. I am advised that the time limit in Scotland remains three years. If the time limit in Scotland is three years and the limit in England and Wales is one year, that is likely to lead to what is nowadays called forum shopping in cases in which proceedings are not brought timeously in England and Wales, or in Northern Ireland, to which the one-year limit would also apply.
These days, most publication is UK-wide, although generally the burden of publication is in one of the jurisdictions. Although private international law addresses some of the problems that might arise, it does not meet them all. I am told that the doomsday scenario among Scottish lawyers—but I find it hard to believe that Scottish lawyers are reluctant to earn any fees that might result—is that libel lawyers in London might use the Scottish courts as a forum in which to start proceedings that would otherwise be time-barred. It would make us

look rather foolish if cases could be brought in Scotland on the same facts in the same publication after a time bar had run out in England. The case for a shared time bar must be strong.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: My hon. and learned Friend is making a good fist of understanding Scots law. Perhaps he has in mind some forum shopping after the next election, or the one after that. Has my hon. and learned Friend turned his mind to the inhibition that the present law places on attacking the character of the plaintiff? That inhibition, from which certain prominent individuals have obviously profited in the past, is to be removed by the Bill, but it will remain in Scotland. Has my hon. and learned Friend given any consideration to the anomaly that will arise if those two different systems stand side by side?

Mr. Carlile: I have, and I will deal with it in my next point but one. My hon. and learned Friend suggested that I might be interested in the odd wee briefie in Scotland. The answer is, of course, any time that I am free. Perhaps he would like to have a word with his clerk.
Clause 8 deals with the summary procedure. I am concerned that the damages limit of £10,000 is much too low. A point was made earlier about the money that newspapers make from sensational stories—and no doubt they do. What is more, there is no doubt that newspapers calculate the effect on their circulation of publishing a sensational story which may have risks attached to it. They are prepared to pay not very reliable witnesses sums far in excess of £10,000 just to be able to quote them, and photograph them for the story.
The damages payable under a summary procedure, which we do need, should be proportionate to the sums that the newspapers can make from the stories. If we do not do that, newspapers will make £50,000 or £60,000 clear profit from the story, which they will have assessed with great and cynical care. Paying £10,000 to the poor person who has been libelled will pale into insignificance and will go down as a small business expense.
Those who have been libelled, and there are quite a number in the House now, including one or two who share this Bench with me—they will go to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough for advice next time—would share the view that it is important that newspapers should not be able to see libel as a profitable business to be indulged in at will.
I want to make a point about clause 8, and clause 9, which is associated with it. It has been put to me by an entirely partial organisation—the Fleet Street Lawyers Society—but it has expressed it well and may be on to something. In clause 9(2) there appears to be a provision which will enable a judge to draft an apology and direct that those words should appear in a particular form and in a particular place in a newspaper. I am all in favour of newspapers being called to account when they defame—

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Except in my case.

Mr. Carlile: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening earlier, he would have heard me make it clear that I support his wish to have his case tried. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene? Many hon. Members would like to see the hon. Gentleman's case tried, and I am one of them.
My point is that clause 9(2) creates a new spectre for the press which is the drafting and placing in newspapers of certain forms of statement by judges. That may be one step too far against the freedom of the press. There are certain circumstances in which the adage, "Publish and be damned" has some validity. The House should hesitate before it goes down the road of judge-drafted apologies, placed in a form directed by the judge and in a place in a newspaper directed by the judge. No doubt, we shall return to that discussion.
Evidence of convictions and character was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East. It is dealt with in clauses 12 and 13. Clause 13 plainly gives newspapers the opportunity to rake up dirt about employment that was not known at the time of the defamation and that was sought only after an action was started. I have been involved professionally not in defamation cases, but in other cases where expensive private investigators have been sent to rake up dirt on people. The way in which they do so is extremely intrusive. We heard some illustrations earlier. They usually start with the dustbins and go downwards from there. We should hesitate before permitting such activity to take place.
Furthermore, as my hon. and learned Friend intimated, we may allow that to happen in England, but the law of Scotland will remain different. The rule in Scott v. Sampson will continue to be in force in Scotland, whereas it will be abolished in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The present law in Scotland allows a dishonest pursuer, as they call him there, or plaintiff, as we call him here, to protect his reputation in court. The judge or jury is not entitled to know that, in truth, he is a dishonest person or a person of bad character. The defence is not allowed to introduce evidence to that effect. The likes of, let us say, the late Robert Maxwell have made much use of those provisions to conceal their true character from the courts.
The Bill permits a disparity between England, Wales and Northern Ireland and Scotland. That will encourage forum shopping because, plainly, plaintiffs who feel vulnerable as to their character will start their action, if they possibly can, in Scotland. What is more, as I understand it, in Scotland, they would be able to insist on a jury trial. I see my hon. and learned Friend shaking his head. I ask him to sort that one out with the Scottish Media Lawyers Society when he is next in Edinburgh. There is, however, an anomaly between English and Scottish law. I urge the Minister to resolve it before the Bill is finalised.
Apart from clause 14, which causes great anxiety, and about which the House has heard from me and other hon. Members, the Bill is useful and can be turned into a tidying-up and reform of the law of defamation. That will make it simpler and give more people access to the courts, although still leaving many way outside the financial prospect of bringing an action for libel or slander.
I hope that we shall be permitted to have a full debate on the Hoffmann amendment on the Floor of the House, that we will be able to offer alternatives for debate by the House and that it will not, in any sense, be a whipped debate. There are fairly ugly rumours and suspicions that, in the House of Lords, there was an unofficial whip on the Hoffmann amendment—certainly a great deal of encouragement—and that the neutrality that the Government contend that there was, was somewhat

artificial. If that is so, I hope that we will not have a repeat performance when the House considers the matter during later proceedings on the Bill.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: In a House that, as usual, seems to be stuffed with members of the legal profession, it is slightly intimidating for a lay person such as myself to contribute to the debate. I feel already their blood rising when they see someone standing not exactly in the box, but in a sort of court; they are waiting just to get their teeth into what I am about to say.
I want to say only three things. One is about the plaintiff being given a proper right of reply should they be libelled. Clause 2(4) mentions an opportunity to do that in an offer to make amends. Will the Minister consider building into the Bill a provision that, when newspapers make an apology, as they sometimes offer to do when settling out of court, they should have to make it as prominent as the original libel, and—possibly—reproduce in its entirety the apology that they made in court?
In my experience, newspapers usually fillet the large slice of humble pie that they have had to eat. It is reduced to a relatively small piece of pie that they tend to poke away in some obscure part of the newspaper. That is extremely annoying to the person who has been libelled. They do not feel that they have had a fair showing in the paper.
A line in a popular song says, "It ain't what you do do, it's more what you don't do." My second point is that the Bill don't do justice to the fact that newspapers can offset all their costs in actions, whereas plaintiffs have to pay out of their net income. That is totally wrong. Newspapers offset not only their legal costs and VAT, but are often insured—partly at least—against the award that may be made against them. Although it is not the place of my hon. Friend the Minister, the Bill's tax implications should be seriously considered.
An individual, not the newspaper as an institution, should be held responsible for the libel. There is something to be said for newspaper editors being held partially liable. Unless they are hit in their own pockets, they will not have any incentive to act otherwise—not even to make their own staff check the details of what they are about to print. We all know that stories go to print without the person whom they are about to traduce being contacted.
The third thing missing in the Bill, not surprisingly, is any reference to the gouging fees that the legal profession charges people who have to go to court to defend themselves. I admit that, on occasions, some of my hon. Friends have assisted me. Lord Williams said that he did not support an amendment to the Bill in another place on the basis that scales are often uneven in defamation cases—which is absolutely true—where the plaintiff is a private person who cannot get legal aid and the defendant is often a wealthy corporation.
I would love it if we could incorporate something in the Bill to address the fact that plaintiffs who cannot get legal aid can hardly find a barrister to do the job for less than £300 or £400 an hour. In fact, silks charge about £1,000 an hour, which is simply appalling. [Interruption.] That is certainly the case in London libel courts.
In Committee—where I very much hope that I shall have the opportunity to speak—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear it in mind that we should be trying


to establish a level playing field on both sides of a libel action. At the moment, the scales are loaded in favour of newspapers, which is why there is so much discontent about how defamation laws in this country work. In Committee, we must try to strike a balance.

Dr. Tony Wright: I have only two points to make. I am neither a lawyer nor a Member with a grievance, which makes me a distinct minority among those who have spoken in the debate. But what I am is a Member of Parliament—one who has an interest in how Parliament has developed, and how it has attempted to claim its rights over the years.
As a Member of Parliament, I view with some alarm the casual way in which, into an otherwise perfectly benign, uncontroversial, helpful Bill, has been slipped an amendment that would have the effect of striking out a fundamental of our constitution. That may seem rather an extravagant thing to say to a thin Tuesday night House on the day before we rise for the recess, but I am afraid that that is what we are talking about, and I hope that the House will understand it.
Many of us will say that we have genuine sympathy with the hon. Members who find themselves in the predicaments that we have heard about, and that we want to do something to help them, but we live in an environment in which privilege has been claimed for proceedings here, and we would be ill advised to trespass on that arrangement unless we had given the whole idea the most careful consideration and knew precisely what we were doing.
In an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said that if we did as is suggested we would simply be "closing a loophole". Actually, we would be altering the Bill of Rights of 1688. That is the "loophole" that we would be closing. I know that it may be a bit old-fashioned, but it is worth reminding ourselves what the Bill of Rights says:
Freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament".
On the whole, that formulation has served the House rather well for 300 years. It is rather sharp and acute, and has a point to it. Above all, it has kept Parliament and the courts out of the conflicts that have bedevilled political systems all over the world. Each has known its place, because ever since 1688 privilege has been enshrined in that clause of the Bill of Rights.
When amendments are introduced late in the day to deal, so it is believed, with particular court cases of the moment by allowing hon. Members a waiver of privilege, as though that were a matter affecting no one but the individual hon. Member concerned, whatever our sympathies with such individuals, many of us will say, "I am afraid that things are just not like that." The matter of privilege is just not like that.
It is not possible for individual Members of Parliament to claim waivers of privilege, because privilege belongs to the House of Commons itself, and it is there for a reason. We hold privilege not so much for ourselves but on behalf of the people, who have set up a system of democratic representation and given us certain rights of privilege to speak on their behalf.
We have to exercise that right responsibly. I could stand here and say the most outrageous things, about the chairman of my constituency party—

Mr. Boateng: Surely not.

Dr. Wright: —or about the editor of The Times, and sometimes I feel provoked to do both. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course, the first part of that sentence should immediately be deleted from the record.
The right of privilege is there for a reason, and the obligation that goes with it is to use it responsibly.
On the other side, we know that journalists have treated politicians with magnificent contempt not only in latter days but for hundreds of years. They have lampooned them, traduced them, defamed them and done all kinds of monstrous things to them. Despite the predicaments in which some hon. Members find themselves, all that was far worse in the past than it is today,
But in all that time—even when a daily columnist has suggested that an hon. Member does not possess his own hair—it has never been suggested that we should rush to the courts because of such treatment. Such matters are too important for that. Matters of privilege are embedded in how the House works.
This is not the time to rehearse the arguments and anxieties expressed in another place and by hon. Members about some of the implications of the Bill. I want to focus simply and briefly on a fundamental point. Only Parliament itself could waive a privilege that belongs to it on behalf of the people. An individual hon. Member could not waive it because that would undercut the purpose of privilege itself. It might be possible to introduce a mechanism so that Parliament could find a way of allowing individuals to waive privilege, but that would require a special procedure. We are in deep and dangerous territory, and casual amendments to Bills are not the solution.
I end with my second point, which is a procedural one. We are told that Lord Hoffmann tabled the amendment in the other place only so that it could be discussed and debated. As we have heard, he did not feel that he could vote for it. In addition, the Minister said earlier that he wanted only to have the matter debated. The problem is that Parliament does not have the mechanism to enable that immensely important constitutional debate to take place. With great respect to those hon. Members who will serve on it, such a debate will not take place in Committee. It will not take place on Report, although we have been promised some discussion and a vote later. Our discussion will not be informed by the extensive, expert and critical scrutiny that an amendment or a derogation from the Bill of Rights warrants. Such an amendment would require a Committee of Privileges to pronounce on it, and would certainly require a Joint Committee, as proposed by hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), to consider it.
The real problem is that when Parliament wants to consider such matters, it does not have the mechanism to do so. I speak as someone who favours constitutional change—I am not conservative in these matters. In wanting to make constitutional change, however, we must not make change as Parliament tends to—on the hoof and without thought, storing up problems for the future.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman's party is committed to a great deal of constitutional change. Is he


suggesting that the House is incapable of dealing with such constitutional change and that it would have to refer it to special Committees?

Dr. Wright: The Minister's intervention invites me to go further than I intended, but I shall resist that temptation. I shall say simply that the fact that we have no special procedure to deal with constitutional matters, and instead treat them as though they were ordinary laws, is the source of many of our problems and discontents.
The time has come to try to develop the mechanisms and machinery that would enable us to deal with the Bill and all the other things that we propose. Personally, I would favour a constitutional commission—analogous to the Law Commission—to which such matters could be referred and which could produce expert and authoritative advice for the House. The way in which this change is being made is precisely the way in which it should not be done. We should not proceed casually and in a hurry without the reflection and expertise that is required.
We have had a golden rule governing the relationship between Parliament and the courts for 300 years. It has been enshrined in the article of the Bill of the Rights to which I have referred. In so far as we have anything resembling a written constitution, that article of the Bill of Rights is an important component of it. I do not believe that, on reflection, the House would want to sweep all that aside without consideration on the back of a Bill that is really about something else.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I shall intervene in the debate for about 60 seconds. On Report, we may be able to go into clause 14 and, in Committee, I hope that I will not have to draw on my personal experience of libel and defamation, but I must repeat the notice that I gave my hon. Friend the Minister about the judgment in Northern Ireland in the case involving The Daily Telegraph.
I am glad that paragraph 12(2) of schedule 1 states:
In this paragraph a 'public meeting' means a meeting bona fide and lawfully held for a lawful purpose and for the furtherance or discussion of a matter of public concern, whether admission to the meeting is general or restricted.
This is not a criticism of the judge, but it is incredible that a press conference—with members of the press invited to give more publicity to an issue—could have been determined in any court in any part of the United Kingdom as not being a public meeting.
I have no interests as a long-term reader of The Daily Telegraph, but it should be disqualified from trying to argue that it had qualified privilege, subject to explanation or contradiction, in reporting what was said at the press conference. I hope that that can be overturned on appeal, but I certainly believe that that part of the schedule should be sufficient to ensure that a newspaper trying to do its duty in sharing honestly expressed views with the public is able to do so without being liable to being left without any defence if the matter becomes the subject of a libel case.

Mr. Boateng: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had an important debate, albeit it one that was interrupted by other matters. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon

(Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) made contributions which underlined the importance of the deliberations that the House is about to engage upon in relation to article 9 of the Bill of Rights, as did other hon. Members. I am concerned that the Government clearly do not intend to accede to any provisions by which it might be possible to give that important constitutional issue the airing and deliberation that the Opposition believe that it deserves.
Clearly, the Government are not prepared to accede to the motion for a Joint Committee of both Houses. If that is not to be the case, I urge them at this late stage to consider whether dealing with the matter on Report is the most satisfactory way to proceed, particularly when they have the option of splitting consideration of the Bill hereafter between a Committee of the whole House, on the Floor of the House—to consider clause 14 and debate it at length, with the opportunity for amendment—and a Standing Committee to deal with the remainder of the Bill. That at least would give an opportunity for the full and considered debate that this important issue deserves and would not cause those who take note of our proceedings to believe that we treated it with anything other than the seriousness that it deserves.
Whatever some Conservative Members have said, we are talking about a major constitutional change, and it should not be dealt with in the way that the Government propose. Even at this late stage, I ask the Minister and his colleagues to think again.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. This has been an excellent debate and, in a way, we have managed to focus the attention of the House on those aspects of the Bill that are likely to lead to further debate in Committee and on Report.
A number of contributions have been made—by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)—about the position regarding the limitation period. The Government have always said that the limitation period should also be subject to the operation of the discretion that is attached thereto. I do not want go into the detail now, but many of the concerns ventilated in the debate will be addressed by that. I look forward to developing those arguments in Committee.
The ruling on Scott v. Sampson and the Bill's proposals on that—and the way in which it impinges on the Scottish situation—were also of great interest. I hope that those concerns are addressed by the limitations attached to the relevant clause. Again, because of the wide concern that has been expressed in the debate, I hope that we can deal with the matter in more detail in Committee.
Finally, I must deal with some of the points on clause 14. I must correct the impression that it was added as a side wind, as it was described. It was introduced by Lord Hoffmann in the House of Lords. In Committee, the Lord Chancellor said that he did not think it appropriate that a vote should be taken because there had not been enough time to debate the issue at length. It was then debated yet again on Report. That was an excellent and very full


debate. People who have read the report of that debate— I know that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery agrees—know that it was a wide-ranging debate with excellent contributions from people with wide experience. In my opening remarks, I said that that debate would be helpful to hon. Members. I hope that all hon. Members will have had the opportunity of having read it when we discuss the matter on Report.

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the view of the majority of those who spoke on Third Reading in the Lords that the matter should be considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses. He has had ample opportunity to consider that proposal. If the Government have decided against it, does he not have the responsibility to tell us why? It is not a matter that should be dealt with by a deafening silence. Why will the Government not agree to its being considered in a Joint Committee?

Mr. Evans: Again, I turn to the suggestion that I made in my opening statement that the report of the Lords Third Reading debate should be read by hon. Members. They would see that the Lord Chancellor made it clear that there were two options: the matter could have been referred to a Joint Committee or it could be dealt with then, with a similar vote being taken in this House, and that is the course of action that was taken.

Question put and agreed to

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — POLICE BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, That the Bill be not committed.— [Mr. Streeter.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, That the Bill be not committed.— [Mr. Streeter.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, That the Bill be not committed.— [Mr. Streeter.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Wednesday 5th June, Standing Orders Nos. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) and 15 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure)) shall apply to the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Blair relating to the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996.— [Mr. Streeter.]

Orders of the Day — Community Care (Scottish Borders)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to rehearse some of the fears and anxieties felt in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) about the consequences of the budgetary constraints facing the new unitary authority in the provision of community care in the borders.
I do not wish to waste valuable time tonight in detailed castigations of central Government for causing that problem, although it would be easy to do so. Opposition Members often resort to blaming the Government for how we got here. I do not care to rehearse those problems tonight.
I start by placing on the record the difficulties facing the local authority as a result of the fact that the 1996–97 financial settlement required the social work committee of the new unitary Scottish Borders council to reduce its social work budget by 9 per cent. in the current financial year.
For the purposes of tonight's argument, it does not matter how we arrived at the situation or who is to blame. Recrimination will not help us to make the best progress we can. I am anxious to confront the future, consider the problems that confront the local authority, and discover what can be done, in partnership with central Government, to try to solve some of the problems.
I should be misleading the House if I did not say that I was deeply anxious and troubled by the position that is unfolding locally. I shall use the time available to me to ask the Government whether they will consider undertaking a fundamental and thorough review of the current system of finance for community care, not only in south-east Scotland and the Borders region but throughout Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Scottish Borders council is now being forced to save about £240,000—nearly a quarter of a million pounds—from this year's general care budget of £3.7 million. It is being forced to make that saving in 12 months, and as a result must take decisions that mete out an extreme form of rough justice—especially, in the first instance, on the home care assistants, who are being made to bear the brunt of the cuts, which are being made in a rush.
Having spent some time studying the local authority's position, I support the principles behind the decisions that the council is taking, because they are obviously the least worst option. I have been persuaded by the social work department that any other attempt to make savings of that magnitude in the required time scale would have required a significant reduction in the hours of care available to clients, which is in no one's interests and must be avoided at all costs.
The measures are being forced on the council in an unduly short period, with indecent haste. People throughout the Borders feel great distress and concern. No one opposes sensible attempts to obtain value for money, but the scale of the savings that must be made in such a hopelessly short period has forced the council to reassess

all its existing clients and determine whether current levels of care were appropriate to their current needs, and whether they could survive with less care. That in itself is a difficult process.
Secondly, the council is considering a pilot project to externalise a significant proportion of the in-house services provided in home care. That will effectively create, for the first time, a two-tier system of pay for home care assistants—comprising care tasks, which involve personal duties such as bathing people; and domestic tasks, which involve lighting fires, cleaning and so on.
All this is being done at the same time as the council is expected to deal with changes in the system of social work, including the alteration in the capital disregard when calculating the means available to clients for residential long-term care. That change was announced in last year's Budget, and the money being offered in recompense does not begin to meet the loss of income that the council will suffer.
Moreover, there are increased costs associated with paying for a raft of new social work duties involved in the implementation of the Children Act 1989 and the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995.
Taken together, all these elements produce extreme financial pressure on social work departments such as the one run by Borders council. This evening, I call on the Government to look carefully again at these financial pressures, and I ask the Minister to consider whether it is possible, even at this late stage, to continue the three-year transitional relief that the council until recently enjoyed. That would give the council more time to prepare for the changes and to ease their implementation.
I suggest that the pilot scheme implemented by Borders council runs with the grain of Government policy. It seeks to do much of what the Government want councils in general to achieve. The scheme could serve as a model for other areas if it were properly financed and implemented.
The real danger for the Government is that the problems facing the council are likely to worsen significantly because of the shortage of money and the lack of time to make the necessary changes. That combination will lead to difficulties which, in the long run, will not do anything to promote the idea and policy of community care—a policy to which the Government are rightly committed.
A series of problems face Borders council at present, and the Government should be alive to them and should seek to work with the council to remedy them. First, there are the severe cuts that could be made to the income available to home care assistants. These are vital workers who perform intimate services for the clients they help, often for far longer than the hours for which they are paid. Their morale has, not surprisingly, been severely hit. If the good will of this vital group of workers is lost, we shall, in effect, have cut off our nose to spite our face.
Secondly, the break in continuity between clients and home care assistants is a worrying aspect of the changes. These relationships have often been built up over many years; they are invaluable to the physical, mental, social and psychological care of some clients, some of whom live in isolated parts of the rural, landward areas of the constituency. There is also the possibility that the contract requirements will be so restrictive and tightly drawn in terms of financial constraints that either they will not be tendered for by any organisation because it will be


impossible to keep their profit and loss accounts in the black, or they will be taken over by private companies that will make them work by cutting corners. As a consequence, standards will fall and the social work department will have to pick up the pieces.
I received a letter from the Royal College of Nursing which expands on some of those fears. It makes two points about the Scottish Borders council that the Government should take on board. First, it states:
The RCN is particularly concerned that cutbacks in domiciliary care services will have knock-on effects on community health services,"—
which come out of another budget but are still public expenditure—
placing yet more pressure on community nurses.
That would be in no one's interests.
Secondly, the RCN is rightly concerned about some of the aspects of the proposals to externalise some of the domiciliary services which
raise questions of accountability and health and safety both for the carer and the client. There are also concerns about assessing the suitability of carers and whether police checks will be mandatory for services contracted out.
Those are all important questions.
I wonder whether we are giving ourselves enough time to think matters through, given the way in which the pilot project is being forced on the local council in the Borders. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale is most concerned and had he not had engagements elsewhere, he would have told the Minister that the financial constraints have been so severe that the Scottish Borders council social work department has been unable to negotiate realistic fees with the owners of local private homes. The department is simply laying down levels of fees that it can afford and that bear no relation to the costs borne by private home owners. Therefore, the plural provision in the private sector in the Borders region could be severely prejudiced.
I hope that the Government will examine the problem as a matter of urgency. I perceive a willingness to change and run with the grain of the Government's policy. Externalising some of those domiciliary services could be done sensibly in a bona fide way particularly through voluntary organisations such as Crossroads. However, such organisations would face great difficulties in tendering for contracts as they do not have the administrative or financial capability to do so. That is a great shame. It is also possible that home care assistants could organise a service more cheaply and efficiently and provide better value for money, but not within the time scale or in the present circumstances in the Borders. The Government should take those problems very much to heart and sort them out in future.
In conclusion, I hope that I have laid down some markers to show that there is real concern in the Scottish Borders about some of the enforced decisions that are being taken by the social work department. I pay tribute to the work that is being carried out, but there could be real problems later this year. If the pilot scheme does not work because client needs exceed the available budget and nobody tenders for the contracts to externalise the services, the social work department will be left with no alternative way of making the savings required but to cut

the number of hours available to clients. That will put people at risk, so it is not acceptable. If things are bad this year, according to some of the references from Ministers that have been reported to me, they will be even worse next year.
Can the Minister reassure those who are struggling with the problems and trying their best to make the system work according to Government policy? They are shackled to taking difficult short-term decisions that are causing great distress to people who do not deserve to suffer in that way. We must sort out the mess and ensure that there is sensible provision of community care which meets the needs of clients in the Scottish Borders council area in the near future.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on securing the debate, and on making many useful points tonight.
I have good news about Crossroads, which is currently funded by the Scottish Office. It recently received a one-off additional grant in recognition of its contribution. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues that are relevant not only to the Scottish borders but more widely regarding the arrangements for funding, service provision and support for the most vulnerable people in our society.
I shall address the specific points about community care services in the borders, but first I shall refer briefly to the funding of social work services in Scotland. The implementation of the community care policy has initiated a significant shift in the provision of health and social care services for vulnerable people towards care in their own homes and in residential accommodation in the community.
The substantial additional financial resources that have been allocated to authorities reflect the central role of social work departments in developing the pattern of social care provision in their areas. In the current year, local authorities have some £662 million available for their community care responsibilities, compared with £378 million at the beginning of the decade.
The hon. Gentleman referred to cuts in services and to concerns expressed by the Royal College of Nursing. By making more effective use of their resources, authorities should be in a strong position to ensure that appropriate levels of support are available for vulnerable people. The local authorities will continue to be responsible for undertaking care needs assessments. When services are contracted out, authorities will continue to promote standards through contract conditions. Users of contracted-out services will continue to have access to local authority complaints procedures. I accept the importance that the hon. Gentleman placed on monitoring.
An additional £250,000 has been allowed within the grant-aided expenditure allocation to the Scottish Borders council for the provision of adult community care services. We would encourage all local authorities to accord appropriate priority to the provision of services on which vulnerable people rely.
Concern has been expressed that the criteria for receiving home help services will be reassessed as part of the tendering process. As a matter of good practice, all local authorities should regularly re-examine the services


they provide, to ensure that resources are targeted properly. That exercise will identify the types of home care service that people require. Eligibility criteria in the borders will not be changed.
As to the cost of new circulars—for example, guidance about the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995— we have issued a number of guidance documents advising councils about their social work functions as part of the arrangements for local government reorganisation. They relate to existing responsibilities and do not require the provision of additional resources.
Transitional protection was provided to authorities where there was a traditionally high level of DSS expenditure on residential placements proportional to population needs. The arrangements ended last year, but monitoring of local authority expenditure on residential accommodation in the borders shows that the original DSS transfer allocation was generous.
I accept that many authorities are now reviewing their budgets. That is a matter of good practice, but it is particularly important when a legacy of reduced surpluses and unrealistically high underlying expenditure levels has been inherited from outgoing councils.
Reference was made to funding in the borders. I believe that the allocation was generous, as I said. Many of the residents in residential and nursing home care supported by DSS funding prior to 1993 had not been from the Borders. The borders region thus had no responsibility to fund its successors.
Despite that, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities agreed that Borders should receive funding, in the form of transitional protection, to help in the first three years. During that period, the former local authority's expenditure on purchasing places in independent sector residential and nursing home accommodation was well below the levels estimated when the DSS transfer allocation to the authority was calculated.
None the less, the allocation for community care responsibilities has increased by more than £250,000 from last year's level, to over £14 million. It is for the local authority to determine its funding priorities.
Particularly important is the fact that we have encouraged authorities to plan the use of current and future financial resources as part of a strategic approach to the provision of community care services. Authorities are therefore required to set out those proposals in their community care plans, which are reviewed—rightly—on an annual basis. In addition, local community care arrangements can be monitored closely, first, through local consultation; secondly, by the Scottish Office through research; thirdly, through statistical returns; fourthly, through the social work services inspectorate; and fifthly, through the community care implementation unit.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, that monitoring is very important. If people are to receive the services they need, authorities must aim to achieve value for money from all the services they purchase—both those purchased from independent providers and those from their in-house services.
Local authority residential care homes are generally substantially more expensive than independent sector homes, without necessarily providing better standards of

care. Research has not found a relationship between cost and quality. The typical unit cost to Borders council of care for people in its own residential care homes is about £6,000 per person higher than equivalent independent sector provision. If people currently in local authority homes in the borders were in independent sector homes, the saving would be more than £1 million.
Our aim is not to end the long tradition of local authority provision of social care services. That would be neither practical nor desirable. However, as purchasers of community care services, authorities must ensure that they are even-handed in buying care provision and obtaining value for money in the best interests of the patients and consumers.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire has expressed concern about externalising home help services, which are currently provided in-house by Scottish Borders council. Total social work expenditure on home help services in Scotland is about £100 million each year. Almost all that is for services provided directly by authorities.
Compulsory competitive tendering has been introduced to the purchasing of many services provided by authorities, which includes many manual and white-collar jobs. That discipline has brought about substantial improvements in the cost and the quality of services and applies both to services purchased from independent sector providers and to the authorities' in-house teams, where they have been successful. We have not introduced compulsory competitive tendering to the provision of social work services, in the belief that authorities will seek to make the best use of their resources in helping vulnerable people,
Scottish Borders council's social work committee proposes to put out to tender part of the home help service for the elderly. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire is concerned about a loss of quality for the recipients of the services. Both he and I share an interest in maintaining a very high quality of care and securing value for money in the provision of services.
Potentially this is the first example of an authority purchasing such services from the independent sector on a significant scale. The contract will initially be for a 12-month period. The council has indicated that it will review the contract arrangements after nine months to ensure continuity of service provision. I can assure the hon. Member that we also will monitor the progress of this initiative.
Concern has also been expressed about the time scale for the tendering process. The council developed a specification for tendering for the home help service some time ago, which is applicable to its in-house service and to external providers. The specification articulates the principles of care, health and safety issues, procedures and routines, and reviews and staffing on which the service should be based.
The provision of home help services has increased markedly, even in the last five years. In 1990, more than 82,000 people in Scotland were assisted by home helps; by 1995 that had increased to over 93,000, a rise of 14 per cent. Over the same period, however, the increase in such services in the borders area was double the national figure—a rise of 28 per cent., to almost 2,000.
Despite that increase relative to population, the number of home helps in the borders was lower than in any other local authority in Scotland. It is against that background


that the authority is considering how it can best meet the needs of its local population. It is right that it should seek to purchase services as cost-effectively as possible. The terms of such purchases will be a matter for negotiation between the authority and individual providers.
It is inevitable that there will be a range of unit costs, just as there is a range of service demands. The home help service meets the needs of older persons in a wide range of practical ways, which vary among individuals, and range from help with household tasks such as shopping and cleaning to help with personal care tasks such as washing and dressing. Home helps often provide company as well as assistance for older people, but the local authority home help service largely excludes heavy lifting or working above floor level—for example, cleaning windows or replacing light bulbs—from its stated responsibilities.
Authorities must take account of differing needs when considering how services can best be delivered in the most cost-effective way. The views and interests of service users and their carers should also be considered. The Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, which came into effect on 1 April, gives carers a statutory right to request an assessment of their own needs.
In the case of the home help service in the borders, the authority is, in the tendering process, differentiating between domestic and personal care, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I understand that it is the former that is being put out to tender, while the more skilled personal care services will continue to be provided by staff who have a proven record in that area.
The hon. Gentleman also expressed concern about the conditions of home help staff when the management of services is transferred to independent sector providers. The vast majority of independent sector social care providers offer high-quality care and appropriate wage levels to their staff. As with other public sector areas, authorities have been encouraged to ensure that wage increases are funded from efficiency savings. If that advice has been followed, authorities should be able to tender for former local authority-managed services at realistic funding levels. Regardless of who provides the service, they must offer a high standard of care and be seen to do so.
The hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about the quality of services. Contract specifications are very important. They must include criteria against which
quality can be measured and monitored, so that the welfare of the recipients of the services can be protected. Another means of ensuring that standards are maintained is registration of providers. We believe that the current arrangements for self-regulation have proved an effective means of maintaining standards in the independent domiciliary sector.
The private sector played an integral role in the work of the Joint Advisory Group of Domiciliary Care Associations in producing a standards guidance document. The United Kingdom Homecare Association has also produced a code of practice for providers and a recommended complaints procedure for clients.
The need for statutory control of domiciliary care provision was considered in the Department of Health document "Moving Forward", on the regulation and inspection of services in England and Wales. It was also considered by the Scottish Office working group on residential care home registration procedures, which is due to report to very shortly. We shall then decide what action, if any, to take in the light of the working group's deliberations. Authorities may, however, introduce their own measures. I understand that Borders council purchases services only from independent sector providers that are registered with it as approved suppliers of domiciliary care.
The provision of domiciliary services, including home helps, is central to allowing older people to retain maximum independence. Our aim is for services to be developed that can respond flexibly and sensitively to the needs of individuals, and concentrate on those with the greatest need.
This year, the social work services inspectorate published a report on an inspection of local authority home help services for older people. It examined provision in six areas of Scotland, including Kelso. The report found that, overall, the home help service was reliable, but that difficulties were experienced at times of staff holidays and sickness, during evenings and at weekends, with certain household tasks such as window cleaning and with the frequency and length of service.
The report also—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.